2005-03-01

International trade

2007


2007-03-18-FT-China-commercial-aircraft-Boeing-Airbus
China to challenge Boeing and Airbus
By Richard McGregor in Beijing, Kevin Done in London
and Doug Cameron in Chicago
Financial Times, 2007-03-18
(This article is summarized, and linked to, at chinadigitaltimes.net.)

[Emphasis is added.]

[1]
China plans to mount a head-on challenge
to the dominance of Boeing and Airbus
in the global market for big passenger jets
by setting up a state-owned company to build the aircraft.
[The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (CACC).]

[2]
A statement on the government’s website issued late on Sunday said
the state council – the cabinet –
had taken an “important strategic decision”
to begin research and development to enter the market.

[3]
China is one of the biggest target markets globally for both Boeing and Airbus.
The European group’s latest forecast
places China in second place behind only the US
by both the number and value of jets needed between 2006 and 2025
with a market for 2,929 large aircraft worth $349bn.

[4]
The move, backed by technical know-how developed over
the industry’s 50-year history in the country,
reflected “the wish of the entire Chinese people for many years”,
said the statement.

[5]
It gave no details about the company or how it would be funded,
nor did it set out any timetable.
The decision was taken on February 26,
but there was no explanation for the delay in the announcement.

[6]
Boeing of the US and Europe’s Airbus have a duopoly in
the market for big jets of 100 seats or more.
Both manufacturers estimate the market
to be worth about $2,600bn over the next 20 years
with forecast deliveries of about 23,000 new jets
excluding regional jets of below 100 seats.

[7]
It would take decades for China
to develop a full range of big jets to compete fully with Airbus and Boeing,
but the US and European aerospace industries
take the long-term challenge seriously,
not least as the country will be able to draw on
the support of potentially huge demand from domestic carriers.
It has taken Airbus nearly 40 years to develop a complete family of large jets.

[8]
Steven Udvar-Hazy,
chairman and chief executive of International Lease Finance Corporation,
one of the world’s top two aircraft leasing companies
and one of the most influential purchasers of new aircraft,
said last week that
both China and Russia could develop
aircraft capable of competing with
the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 families of single aisle jets
within 15 years
with government backing and technology gained from both companies.

[9]
He said
there was no reason why companies other than Boeing and Airbus
could not enter the business.


[10]
China has never hidden its ambition
to become a major force in the aviation and aerospace industries,
requiring foreign companies, which sell into its increasingly lucrative market,
also to manufacture parts there and transfer technology.

[11]
It is due to begin deliveries of its first home-made regional jet, the ARJ21,
in 2009,
and is also adding other joint ventures with foreign companies
to assemble aircraft in the country.

[12]
Airbus signed a framework agreement with the Chinese authorities last October
to build its first aircraft assembly plant outside Europe
at Tianjin in eastern China.












2009


2009-09-15-Buchanan
Globalism vs. Americanism
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The American Conservative, 2009-09-15

Down at the Chinese outlet store in Albany known as Wal-Mart,
Chinese tires have so successfully undercut U.S.-made tires
that the Cooper Tire factory in that south Georgia town had to shut down.

Twenty-one hundred Georgians lost their jobs.

The tale of Cooper Tire and what it portends
is told in last week’s Washington Post by Peter Whoriskey.

How could tires made on the other side of the world, then shipped to Albany,
be sold for less than tires made in Albany?

Here’s how.

At Cooper Tire, the wages were $18 to $21 per hour.
In China, they are a fraction of that.
The Albany factory is subject to
U.S. health-and-safety, wage-and-hour and civil rights laws
from which Chinese plants are exempt.
Environmental standards had to be met at Cooper Tire
or the plant would have been closed.
Chinese factories are notorious polluters.

China won the competition because
the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws”
does not apply to the People’s Republic.
While free trade laws grant China free and equal access to the U.S. market,
China can pay workers wages and force them to work hours
that would violate U.S. law,
and China can operate plants
whose health, safety and environmental standards
would have their U.S. competitors shut down as public nuisances.

Beijing also manipulates its currency to keep export prices low
and grants a rebate on its value-added tax on exports to the U.S.A.,
while imposing a value-added tax on goods coming from the U.S.A.

Thus did China, from 2004 to 2008,
triple her share of the U.S. tire market from 5 percent to 17 percent
and take down Cooper Tire of Albany.

But not to worry.
Cooper Tire has seen the light and is now opening and acquiring plants in China,
and sending Albany workers over to train the Chinese who took their jobs.

Welcome to 21st century America, where

globalism has replaced patriotism
as the civil religion of our corporate elites.

As Thomas Jefferson reminded us, “Merchants have no country.”

What has this meant to the republic that was once
the most self-sufficient and independent in all of history?

Since 2001, when George Bush took the oath,
the United States has run
$3.8 trillion in trade deficits in manufactured goods,
more than twice the
$1.68 trillion in trade deficits we ran for imported oil and gas.

Our trade deficit with China in manufactured goods alone,
$1.58 trillion over those eight years,
roughly equals the entire U.S. trade deficit for oil and gas.

U.S. politicians [and pundits] never cease to wail of
the need for “energy independence.”
But why is our dependence on
the oil of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, Nigeria, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela
a greater concern than
our dependence on
a non-democratic rival great power
for computers and vital components of
our weapons systems and high-tech industries?

As Executive Director Auggie Tantillo
of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Committee
compellingly argues:

“Running a trade deficit
for natural resources that the United States lacks
is something that cannot be helped,
but running a massive deficit in manmade products
that America easily could produce itself is a choice —
a poor choice that is bankrupting the country
and responsible for the loss of millions of jobs.”


How many millions of jobs?

In the George W. Bush [43] years,
we lost 5.3 million manufacturing jobs,
one-fourth to one-third of all we had in 2001.

And our dependence on China is growing.

Where Beijing was responsible for
60 percent of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods in 2008,
in the first six months of 2009,
China accounted for 79 percent of our trade deficit in manufactured goods.

How can we end this dependency
and begin building factories and creating jobs here,
rather than deepening our dependency on
a China that seeks to take our place in the sun?

The same way Alexander Hamilton did,
when we Americans produced almost nothing
and were even more dependent on Great Britain than we are on China today.

Let us do unto our trading partners as they have done unto us.

As they rebate value-added taxes on exports to us,
and impose a value-added tax on our exports to them,
let us reciprocate.
Impose a border tax equal to a VAT
on all their goods entering the United States,
and use the hundreds of billions to cut corporate taxes
on all manufacturing done here in the United States.

Where they have tilted the playing field against us,
let us tilt it back again.
Transnational companies are as amoral as sharks.
What is needed is simply to
cut their profits from moving factories and jobs abroad and
increase their profits for bringing them back to the U.S.A.

It’s not rocket science.
Hamilton, James Madison [4] and Abraham Lincoln [16] all did it.
Obama’s tariffs on Chinese tires are a good start.



[I am anything but an expert on the subject of international trade and taxation.
But I do know that
the United States used to run a sizable surplus in trade,
and that
for the United States to continue running deficits as it has in the recent past
will lead to a terrible future (note especially 2009-03-29-Lachman ff.),
one that will make future generations despise the current generation
for its short-sighted, self-serving, greedy policy choices.
Something needs to be done, now, to start reversing those deficits.

Whether Buchanan’s recommendation is the optimal choice, I do not know.
But something needs to be done.
I have no doubt whatsoever that reducing or reversing those deficits
will cause some domestic constituencies pain.
But we really must stop living so much for the present,
and we must reconsider the whole set of priorities
that have led to the present disastrous trade deficits.

(And I firmly believe that part of the policy change that is necessary
is not to increase spending on health care,
but to decrease it severely.
There is no way the U.S. can spend
the exorbitant amounts it currently does on health care
and be competitive internationally.
That is something that those pushing for more health care spending
seem to totally fail to acknowledge,
or possibly even be aware of or care about.)]




2009-10-20-NYT-Bernanke
Fed Chief Cites Role of Trade Imbalances in Crisis
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
New York Times, 2009-10-20
[This is actually from the 10-19 draft;
note that the published title is the rather less pointed
“Asia Said to Be Leading the Globe Out of Crisis”;
the lead paragraph, at least, of the text also seems less pointed.
It looks like one or more editors
is trying to avoid giving the American public the full negative story.]


SANTA BARBARA, Calif. —

[1]
Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, said on Monday that
global trade imbalances played a central role in the global economic crisis
and warned that both the United States and fast-growing Asian nations
needed to do more to prevent them from recurring.

[2]
“We were smug,” Mr. Bernanke said of the United States
in a question and answer session following his speech.

[3]
In answer to another question, he said
the American financial regulatory system was “inadequate”
at managing the immense inflows of cheap money
from China and other countries that had huge trade surpluses.

[4]
In his prepared remarks, Mr. Bernanke acknowledged that
trade imbalances had declined sharply as a result of the crisis,
mainly because trade itself plunged,
but he warned that
American foreign indebtedness would aggravate the imbalances once again
unless the United States reduced its soaring federal budget deficit.


[5]
“The United States must increase its national saving rate,” he said.
“The most effective way to accomplish this goal
is by establishing a sustainable fiscal trajectory,
anchored by
a clear commitment to substantially reduce federal deficits over time.”

[6]
The federal deficit for the 2009 fiscal year soared to $1.4 trillion,
almost triple the deficit in 2008,
and budget analysts predict that
budget deficits will average almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade.

[7]
By the same token, he said,
Asian countries needed to rely less on exports
and more on their consumption at home for their economic growth.
One way to increase Asian household consumption, he said,
would be for countries like China to increase social insurance programs
and reduce the uncertainty that currently hangs over many consumers.

...















2010


2010-09-30-NYT-House-passes-tariff-on-imports-from-China
House Passes Bill to Impose Tariffs on Chinese Goods
By DAVID E. SANGER and SEWELL CHAN
New York Times, 2010-09-30

[This is a grab from the web edition on 2010-09-29.]

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives sent a unusually confrontational signal to the Chinese leadership on Wednesday, voting overwhelmingly to give President Obama the authority to impose tariffs on all Chinese imports — more than $300 billion this year — in retaliation for Beijing’s refusal to revalue its currency.

The vote was 348 to 79.

The bill is unlikely to become law because
the prospects for Senate approval are dim.


Nonetheless, the action was intended to hand President Obama additional leverage in what has become a major flashpoint between the world’s two largest economies. While tariffs have been slapped on specific products, from steel to tires, because of evidence of unfair export subsidies, the threat to put sizable tariffs on a country’s entire line exports to the United States is highly unusual — and, some argue, of dubious legality under international trade law. It reflects both election-year politics over jobs and huge frustration over unfulfilled promises by China to allow its currency to rise in value, which would make Chinese goods less competitive in the United States.

The administration has been of two minds about the legislation. It has often used the rising public anger over China’s trade advantage to argue to Chinese leaders that the United States would no longer tolerate deliberate currency manipulation. That was a point Mr. Obama made repeatedly last week in a two-hour-long meeting with Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister.

But in conversations with Congress, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and other officials have warned of the danger of touching off a trade war, in which China blocks American goods in retaliation — a tit-for-tat feud that could hurt both economies.

[The U.S. imports over $300G from China,
while it exports well under $100G.
The Chinese are the ones who benefit monetarily from the current arrangement.]


The risks go beyond trade.
President Obama is pressing China for help on
cutting exports to Iran,
managing a dangerous leadership transition in North Korea and
coming to some kind of accord on curbing carbon outputs
that contribute to global warming.
He is also coming up with what one senior administration official called
“new rules of the road” over disputed maritime territory.

But in Beijing, and on Capitol Hill, all that has pales in comparison to the currency dispute, which is often portrayed in the Chinese press as an effort to curb China’s growth, and thus its power.
























2016

2016-04-30-Fingleton-trump-has-a-sound-trade-policy-but-where-will-he-get-sound-trade-policy-aides
Trump Has A Sound Trade Policy,
But Where Will He Get Sound Trade Policy Aides?

by Eamonn Fingleton
The Unz Review, 2016-04-30

...

Here are a few other well-informed and reliable trade experts whom Trump should seek out at the first opportunity:

Dan DiMicco. In his former capacity as chief executive of the Nucor steel company, DiMicco fought many trade battles and is an expert on East Asian dumping.

Ralph Gomory. A noted applied mathematician and former head of research at IBM, he is the author, with William Baumol, of Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests. In this book and follow-up papers, Gomory has challenged the theoretical foundations of textbook free trade theory.

Kevin Kearns. Head of the U.S. Business and Industry Council, an organization representing domestic manufacturers, Kearns formerly served as a foreign service officer in Germany, Korea, and Japan, and in that capacity observed first-hand the obstacles faced by US companies in trying to export to key foreign markets. In Japan, he opposed the give-away of American taxpayer funded aerospace technology to the Japanese FSX program.

Robert Lighthizer. A partner in the Skadden Arps law firm and a former deputy United States Trade Representative (USTR), he divides his time between traditional trade litigation, policy advice, and legislative initiatives. He represents heavy manufacturing, agricultural and high-tech companies and has been lead counsel in countless antidumping and countervailing duty cases.

Richard McCormack. Publisher of Manufacturing & Technology News, a well-regarded newsletter, McCormack is an expert on the practical problems faced by U.S. industry in competing in rigged global markets.

Peter Morici. A professor of international business at the University of Maryland and a former advisor to the U.S. International Trade Commission, he is one of the few prominent academic economists who forthrightly challenges his colleagues’ ivory tower commitment to unilateral free trade.

Patrick A. Mulloy. A lawyer who served five two-year terms on the bipartisan United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, he currently serves as a consultant to non-profit groups interested in reforming U.S. trade and economic policies.

Michael Sekora. A noted physicist, he founded Project Socrates,
a classified U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency program
established in 1983 within the Reagan administration. He holds that
the cause of U.S. industrial decline is that
U.S. decision-makers abandoned technology-based planning
and adopted economic-based planning
at the end of World War II.


Alan Tonelson. As research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation, he has written extensively on free trade and globalization and their role in U.S. industrial decline.

...

Labels: , ,

Laissez-faire free trade

Here are some excerpts from the 2008 book
In the Jaws of the Dragon:
America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Dominance

by Eamonn Fingleton.
The emphasis is added.


















Chapter 2
“Don’t Worry, Be Happy”





Section 2.7
The Truth About Laissez-Faire


[2.7.1]
As we have noted, thanks to their faith in American economic dogma,
many American policymakers have been lulled into a false sense of security
about recent economic trends.
They have been assured that
America’s trade deficits will automatically prove self-correcting,
if only policymakers would leave everything to free markets.
Equally, they have been persuaded that
Beijing’s current highly interventionist economic strategy
will prove self-defeating.
Chastened Chinese leaders, it is argued,
will embrace laissez-faire quickly enough
once they discover the error of their ways.

[2.7.2]
The assurances about American trade deficits
can be disposed of in a few sentences.
The idea that the deficits will prove self-correcting
has been a standard shibboleth of Washington discourse since the 1970s.
While reasonable people
might have been persuaded to give this view the benefit of the doubt
thirty years ago,
they can hardly be expected to continue to do so today.

[2.7.3]
Of course, in recent years many defenders of the Washington view
have shifted ground to argue that
even if the deficits do not prove self-correcting,
we need not worry.
The deficits-don’t-matter view
has been prominently championed by Vice President Dick Cheney
as well as by many other influential neoconservative thinkers.
(In Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty [2004],
former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill
quotes Cheney saying at a cabinet meeting in 2002,
“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”)
Yet those who argue that deficits don’t matter
no longer have a leg to stand on.

The reality is that every dollar America spends in projecting power abroad—
indeed every dollar it spends on defense—
has to be borrowed abroad.
Not only that, much of the money comes from its main power rival, China.
To say the least, America’s attempts to pursue an independent foreign policy
will be subject increasingly to a veto in Beijing.
In any case, it is the sheerest of wishful thinking to imagine that
the United States can long remain a world power
if all it has to sell the world, besides wheat[, beef,] and oranges
is treasury bonds.


[2.7.4]
More generally, it should be noted that
laissez-faire has proved a disappointment
almost everywhere it has been tried.
The fact is that in the last four decades [1968–2008]
those advanced nations that have been most faithful to laissez-faire—
the United States and Britain—
have been notable for economic mediocrity, if not downright dysfunction.
Their currencies have on balance fallen precipitately,
their trade positions have spun out of control, and
they have lost the advanced manufacturing industries
that provide a bedrock of well-paid secure jobs
to support broad-based prosperity

[and prevent the trade deficit from spinning totally out of control].

[2.7.5]
The problems with Western economic dogma have long been particularly clear
in the automobile industry.
The nations that have believed in open markets
have largely lost their car industries:
the United States and Britain are the two obvious examples.

[2.7.6]
On the other hand
those nations that have most avidly protected their car markets
have seen their car industries boom.
The principal examples are Japan
which has boosted its world market share four-fold since 1970,
and South Korea which has achieved a phenomenal twenty-fold increase.
It is worth noting that, as of 2007,
South Korea was described by DaimlerChrysler as
“the most closed market in the industrialized world.”

[2.7.7]
All the empirical evidence suggests that
a laissez-faire approach to trade no longer works,
at least not for large nations like the United States and Britain,
not to mention Japan and South Korea.
(Full disclosure:
open markets have worked a lot better in leveling up
small, previously poor economies like Ireland and Finland—
but that is another matter.)

[2.7.8]
After decades of denying any problems,
American economic scholars are now finally beginning to ask
what is wrong with laissez-faire.
Thus, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson
has made some “heretical” public comments
questioning the standard case for free trade.
Meanwhile, in their book
Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests (2000),
Ralph Gomory and William Baumol have shown—
with the sort of rigorous mathematical models
that doctrinaire economists insist on—
that in certain circumstances
outsourcing can be a net negative.

[2.7.9]
Among other top economic thinkers who have recently publicly questioned the orthodoxy are
Alan Blinder, a Princeton professor and former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve;
Lawrence Summers, the Harvard professor who served as Treasury Secretary in the Clinton [42] administration; and
the Berkeley-based Nobel Prize winner George Akerlof.



[2.7.10]
The basic problem is that
laissez-faire is an old dogma
born in the very different economic conditions of Europe two centuries ago.

Although the theory’s early enunciators, Adam Smith and David Ricardo,
stated their case as timelessly applicable,
and this is how it continues to be interpreted today
(at least in the English-speaking world),
they failed to anticipate the dramatic economic changes we have seen
in the last [half century].

[2.7.11]
A fundamental flaw in the Smith-Ricardo model is that it is static,
whereas the real world is dynamic.

The model concerns itself merely with the allocation of resources
at just one moment in time.
It considers the capital and labor available to society at that moment
and predicts that
these resources are likely to serve most efficiently in satisfying consumers’ needs
if all economic actors—investors, managers, workers, and consumers—
are allowed full freedom to maximize their individual positions.

[2.7.12]
While this theory was helpful in times gone by
(and it is still useful in analyzing countless narrowly focused economic problems today),
it has become more and more misleading as a guide to
the workings of today’s highly complex modern global economy.
A key point never considered by Smith and Ricardo is that,
as we have already pointed out [§1.6],
a nation like China can use authoritarian controls to achieve
a preternaturally high savings rate.
Suitably channeled into fast-growth industries,
the resulting capital can power a fast rate of growth in real wages.
Thus the promise to consumers is that
their involuntary early sacrifices will result in
a much more prosperous old age.
It is a promise that has been honored in one East Asian nation after another.

[2.7.13]
Part of the reason the strategy works is that poor nations start with
many easy opportunities for “technology catch-up.”
That is, by investing in standard production technologies
already widely used in richer countries,
they can generate massive increases in productivity.
[Anybody care to try that in an African nation, or in Haiti?]
...

[2.7.14]

Laissez-faire theory is crucially flawed
in a different sense in that
it makes no allowance for the possibility that
nations can manipulate technological progress
to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

Laissez-faire theory is based on the assumption that
breakthroughs in production technology, if they occur at all,
will accrue to all producers equally.
Although this assumption was broadly realistic two centuries ago
(when most of the know-how to compete at the leading edge
either was already in the public domain
or could readily be acquired by dint of
rudimentary industrial espionage),
it is completely mistaken today.

After all,
leading-edge corporations these days spend ever larger sums each year
to achieve proprietary improvements in their production technologies
and thus establish a decisive lead over their competitors.

[2.7.15]
For a nation like China
that wants to boost its technological position at the expense of its rivals,
the course is obvious:
  1. Extort technologies from rival nations.
    In this regard Beijing’s control of access to the Chinese market
    is a huge bargaining chip:
    foreign corporations are simply told that
    if they want a fair shot at the Chinese market
    they must transfer more and more technology to China.
    Key American corporations such as Intel, Microsoft, and General Motors
    have meekly complied.
    One of the more spectacular beneficiaries of this strategy has been
    China’s fast-rising aerospace industry.
    By adroit bargaining,
    Beijing has pressured both Boeing and Airbus
    to transfer key production technologies.
    [In that situation, pressure was clearly more significant than bargaining.]
    Thanks in large measure to such transfers,
    Beijing is planning to launch a full-size commercial airliner by 2020.

  2. Fund research and development.
    This strategy has played little part so far in China’s rise,
    but it will become increasingly important
    as Chinese industry becomes more technologically advanced.
    Here again Japan has set an important example.
    Thanks to considerable help from their national government,
    Japanese corporations spend nearly $100G a year
    on research and development.
    Most such research is devoted to improving production processes
    with the aim of
    making Japanese factories ever more competitive.

  3. Prevent Chinese industry’s key technologies
    from leaking abroad.

    For now Chinese industry does not have many technologies to guard,
    but this strategy will become increasingly relevant in future years.
    What is clear is that
    the governments of the more advanced nations of East Asia
    have long carefully guarded their key technologies from leaking abroad.
    Japan and South Korea have been the two prime examples.

[2.7.16]
As China climbs the technology ladder
the impact on other nations’ economies will become ever greater.
This is because at the leading edge of technological progress,
global competition is increasingly characterized by
a winner-take-all syndrome.
A nation that achieves a narrow competitive edge
in making, for example, a new type of advanced microchip
can at a stroke wipe out its competitors worldwide.
The rewards therefore will increasingly accrue to nations like China
that take a highly focused national approach to technological competition.

[2.7.17]
Part of the problem, argues the Washington-based trade expert Patrick Mulloy,
is that

the interests of American corporations
are increasingly at odds with
those of the American nation.

In a personal addendum to
the 2006 report of the United States–China Economic and Security Review Commission,
Mulloy, who served as a top Commerce Department official
in the Clinton [42] administration, commented:
The interests of the U.S.-based multinational corporations,
which have done so much to influence our current policies toward China,
are often not aligned with the broader interests of our nation.
This is not because they have malevolent intent.
It is a systemic problem for which
we must develop a public policy response.
Those corporations, as they are charged to do in our economic system,
are focused on “shareholder value.”

They are not charged to consider the larger impact of their decisions
on the American economy and workers,
and the impetus they give to China’s growing
international, political, and military strength.

[Twas not always so, as Clyde Prestowitz points out
in chapter 7 of The Betrayal of American Prosperity,
where he notes that prior to the 1970s
the corporate value system was focused on all stakeholders,
not merely the shareholders.]



[2.7.18]
While we do not have space for a full discussion of
the problems with laissez-faire in modern conditions,
let’s simply note that economic planning chiefs in Beijing
do not necessarily “shoot themselves in the foot”
when they assume a strongly assertive role in steering China’s economic development.
While laissez-faire advocates are right in arguing that
government intervention has often proved counterproductive
in, for instance, Latin America,
the lesson of East Asia is that,
in the hands of intelligent, patriotic, and well-organized officials,
government intervention has proved on balance a strongly positive force.


As we will now see, few instances of market intervention
have been more rationally based than
the strongly pro-manufacturing bias of Chinese industrial policy.

Labels: , ,

International finance

















































2009


2009-03-14-NYT-China-Treasuries
China’s Leader Says He Is ‘Worried’ Over U.S. Treasuries
By MICHAEL WINES, KEITH BRADSHER and MARK LANDLER
New York Times, 2009-03-14

[Emphasis is added.]

BEIJING —

[1]
The Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao,
spoke in unusually blunt terms on Friday about
the “safety” of China’s $1 trillion investment in American government debt,
the world’s largest such holding, and
urged the Obama administration to offer assurances that
the securities would maintain their value.


[2]
Speaking ahead of
a meeting of finance ministers and bankers this weekend near London
to lay the groundwork for next month’s
Group of 20 summit meeting of the nations with the 20 largest economies,
Mr. Wen said that
he was “worried” about
China’s holdings of United States Treasury bonds and other debt,
and that
China was watching economic developments in the United States closely.

[3]
As the financial crisis has unfolded,
China has become increasingly vocal about what it perceives as
Washington’s mismanagement of the global economy and financial system,
joining a chorus of foreign critics of unbridled American capitalism.
On Thursday, for example, France and Germany rebuffed American calls
to coordinate a global stimulus package at the G-20 meeting,
saying financial regulation should come first.

[4]
In January, Mr. Wen gave a speech criticizing what he called
an “unsustainable model of development characterized by
prolonged low savings and high consumption.”

There was little doubt that he was referring to the United States.

[5]
Mr. Wen sounded similar themes in his remarks on Friday,
which came in response to questions at a news conference
at the end of the Chinese Parliament’s annual session.
While refraining from direct criticism
of the Obama administration’s economic policies,
he reminded Washington of China’s status as its largest creditor.
With budget deficits mounting rapidly,
the United States needs China
if it is to finance all that new debt at low interest rates.

[6]
“President Obama and his new government
have adopted a series of measures to deal with the financial crisis.
We have expectations as to the effects of these measures,” Mr. Wen said.

“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S.
Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets.
To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.”


[7]
He called on the United States
to “maintain its good credit,
to honor its promises and
to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.”
What he did not mention was that
Chinese investments in the United States helped drive
the debt-fueled boom of the last decade,
during which China grew increasingly dependent on the American market —
a point that was driven home earlier this week
when China reported a record 26 percent drop in exports in February.

[8]
He stopped short of any threat to reduce purchases of American bonds,
much less sell any of them,
underscoring the two countries’ mutual dependency.

[9]
Some specialists say that
China’s investment in American debt is now so vast that
it would be impossible for Beijing to unload its Treasury securities
without flooding the market and driving down their price.

[10]
Still, it is rare for any world leader
to raise questions about the safety of United States Treasuries.
Both the White House and Treasury Department issued reassuring statements.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said,
“There’s no safer investment in the world than in the United States.”
Foreign investors would be reassured
if Congress adopted the president’s budget plan, he said,
because it would put “us on that path to fiscal responsibility.”

[11]
While economists dismiss the possibility of
the United States defaulting on its obligations
[Not all economists dismiss that possiblity;
indeed, some think it is a probability.]
,
they say China could face steep losses in the event of
a sharp rise in United States interest rates or
a plunge in the value of the dollar.

[12]
Mr. Wen praised China’s comparatively healthy economy
and said his government would take whatever steps were needed
to end the country’s slump.
He also predicted that the world economy would improve in 2010.

[13]
His remarks appeared to have little immediate effect on financial markets.
Many China experts said Mr. Wen appeared to be speaking
as much to a domestic audience as to the United States.
Other analysts interpreted Mr. Wen’s comments
simply as a sign of irritation that
the Obama administration had paid little attention to China
in the planning for the G-20 conference.
At the last such meeting in November, China’s president, Hu Jintao,
spoke about the importance of
listening to the voices of major developing economies
in reforming the international financial system.

[14]
“The Chinese are peeved, legitimately,
that the Americans have ignored them in the run-up to the G-20,”
said Adam S. Posen,
the deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
There may also be a bit of tit-for-tat
for Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner’s claim, in written Senate testimony,
that China manipulated its currency,
keeping it artificially low against the dollar.

[15]
Mr. Wen’s confident performance also underscored
the growing financial and geopolitical importance of China,
one of the few countries to retain enormous spending power
despite slowing growth.
It has the world’s largest reserves of foreign exchange,
estimated at $2 trillion,
the product of years of double-digit growth.
[And America’s failure to maintain a relatively even Sino-American trade balance.]

[16]
Economists say at least half of that money has been invested in
United States Treasury notes and other government-backed debt,
mostly bonds issued by the Treasury and government-sponsored enterprises,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[17]
Much of the Treasury debt China purchased in recent years
carries a low interest rate and would plunge in value
if interest rates were to rise sharply in the United States.
Some financial experts have warned that

measures taken to combat the financial crisis —
running large budget deficits and expanding the money supply —
may eventually lead to higher interest rates.


[18]
“The United States government is going to have to sell a huge amount of paper,
and the market may react by demanding a higher interest rate,”
said Nicholas R. Lardy, an expert in the Chinese economy
at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
[May? Isn’t that just what classical economic theory predicts?]
“This will force down the price of outstanding treasuries,
imposing large paper losses on the Chinese.”

[19]
The conflicting financial currents pose a dilemma for Beijing.
The smaller the United States stimulus, the less its borrowing,
which could help prevent interest rates from rising.
But less government spending in the United States could also mean
a slower recovery for the American economy and
reduced American demand for Chinese goods.

[20]
The sharp narrowing of China’s trade surplus with the United States
may result in reduced Chinese purchases of American bonds in any case.
By some accounts,
China’s trade surplus could fall by as much as half this year,
to around $155 billion.
That would leave China with fewer dollars to buy foreign bonds,
particularly as the pace of investment flows into China has also slowed sharply.

[21]
During her visit here last month,
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly assured China that
its American holdings remained a reliable investment.
But the sheer size of China’s holdings of American debt ensure that
the countries’ partnership will endure,
some analysts say.
“The only possibility, really, is that
China will have to hold these bonds until maturity,”
said Shen Minggao, the chief economist at Caijing,
a Beijing-based business magazine.
“If you start to sell those bonds, the market may collapse.”


2009-03-24-NYT-Barboza-China-new-currency-reserve
China Urges New Money Reserve to Replace Dollar
By DAVID BARBOZA
New York Times, 2009-03-24

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

SHANGHAI —

[1]
In another indication that
China is growing increasingly concerned about holding huge dollar reserves,
the head of its central bank has called for
the eventual creation of a new international currency reserve
to replace the dollar.


[2]
In a paper released Monday,
Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China, said
a new currency reserve system controlled by the International Monetary Fund
could prove more stable and economically viable.

[3]
A new system is necessary, he said, because
the global economic crisis has revealed
the “inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in
the existing international monetary system.”

[4]
While few analysts believe that
the dollar will be replaced as the world’s dominant foreign exchange reserve
anytime soon,
the proposal suggests that China is preparing to assume
a more influential role in the world.
Russia recently made a similar proposal.

[5]
China’s bold idea,
released more than a week before world leaders are to gather in London
for an economic summit meeting,
also indicates that
Beijing is worried that
its huge dollar-denominated foreign reserves
could lose significant value in coming years.

[6]
China has the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves,
valued at nearly $2 trillion,
with more than half of those holdings estimated to be made up of
United States Treasuries and other dollar-denominated bonds.

[7]
On March 13,
China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, said
he was concerned about the safety of those assets,
particularly because

huge economic stimulus plans could lead to
soaring deficits in the United States,
which could sink the dollar’s value.


[8]
Should China lose its appetite for Treasuries,
the United States’ borrowing costs could rise,

making it more costly
for Washington to carry out economic stimulus packages and
for Americans to pay off their mortgages.

[9]
Nicholas Lardy,
an economist and China specialist at the Peterson Institute in Washington,
said that through its proposal,
China was indicating that
the dollar’s long dominance was unfair,
allowing the United States to run huge deficits by borrowing from abroad,
and that the risks to holders of Treasuries were growing.

[10]
“Chinese are quite concerned that
the large U.S. government deficits will eventually lead to inflation,
which will erode the purchasing power of
the dollar-denominated financial assets which they hold,” Mr. Lardy said.
“It is a legitimate concern.”

...

2009-03-26-NYT-Geithner-dollar-as-reserve
Geithner Affirms Dollar After Remarks Send It Tumbling
By ANAHAD O’CONNOR
New York Times, 2009-03-26

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Wednesday said that the dollar would remain the world’s dominant reserve currency for some time to come, clarifying earlier remarks that sent the dollar tumbling.

“The dollar remains the world’s dominant reserve currency,” Mr. Geithner said after a speech in Midtown Manhattan to the Council on Foreign Relations. “I think that’s likely to continue for a long period of time.”

Mr. Geithner’s comments came in response to a question regarding a proposal by Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’s Bank of China, that suggested a possible replacement for the dollar as a global reserve currency. The proposal called on the International Monetary Fund to increase the use of "Special Drawing Rights" — a basket of currencies made up of the euro, yen, pound and dollar that has served as a reserve asset.

The dollar plunged earlier in the morning after Mr. Geithner, in response to another question, said China’s suggestion “deserves some consideration,” though he added that he had not read the proposal.

The dollar rebounded later on Mr. Geithner’s clarification.

Still Mr. Geithner said that the “evolution of the dollar’s role in the system depends really primarily on how effective we are in the United States in getting not just recovery back on track, our financial system repaired, but we get our fiscal position back to the point where people will judge it as sustainable over time.”

“As a country,” he added, “we will do what’s necessary to make sure we’re sustaining confidence in our financial markets and in — and in the productive capacity of this economy and our long-term fundamentals.”

...


2009-05-26-WP-Mallaby
Beijing’s Would-Be Houdinis
By Sebastian Mallaby
Washington Post Op-Ed, 2009-05-26

With extraordinary speed,
China has morphed from a diffident player in international finance
into an impatient table-banger.
Six months ago,
one could muse about whether the Chinese were interested in
a larger role within the International Monetary Fund
or in helping to rebuild the crisis-battered global system.
Now, the Chinese are pumping almost $40 billion into
a new East Asian version of the IMF,
browbeating trading partners into using the yuan,
and floating fantastical ideas about a new international reserve currency.

...


2009-06-03-WP-Geithner-China
China Confident in U.S., Geithner Says
State Media Denounce American Policy
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post, 2009-06-03

BEIJING, June 2 –

[1]
Even as China’s state media on Tuesday
slammed the country’s massive U.S. debt purchases,

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said China’s leaders believe in
“the basic resilience and dynamism of the U.S. economy.”

[2]
Geithner said the economic and finance officials he met with during his two-day trip
did not repeat concerns they have expressed publicly over the past few months
about the deteriorating value of their holdings of U.S. Treasurys
and about the U.S. dollar’s position as the world’s dominant reserve currency.

[3]
“What I sense is a fair amount of confidence,
not just in the basic underlying strength and resilience of the U.S. economy,
its dynamism,
but in our capacity not just to solve this crisis, get growth back on track,
but to go back to living within our means,”
Geithner told a small group of reporters.

[4]
Further, he added, “I believe the Chinese expect the dollar to be the principal reserve currency for a long period of time, as do we.”

[5]
Geithner’s remarks stand in sharp contrast to the commentary in China’s official papers.

[6]
An editorial in the English-language China Daily said
it will be “regrettable
if [Geithner] underestimates and
shuts his ears to voices from China’s civil society,”

noting that there are worries that
“Washington’s mushrooming deficit,
generated by massive government borrowing
to fuel its economic recovery plan . . .
will undermine both the dollar and U.S. bonds.”


[7]
The Global Times, which is affiliated with the Communist Party, said,\
“Ordinary Chinese people [!] are discontent with
the declining value of
China’s huge foreign exchange reserves denominated in U.S. dollars.”

[8]
And Economic Information Daily,
which is part of the official New China News Agency
and affiliated with the State Council,
in a headline demanded to know of Geithner:
“How do you propose implementing fiscal discipline?
How will you maintain the stability of the dollar after the crisis?”


[9]
Yu Yongding, a former central bank adviser who is now a researcher with
the government-affiliated Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,
interviewed Geithner for the China Daily on Tuesday.
He said that the interview focused on the security of China’s foreign reserves
that are held in dollars and that
he was skeptical of the Treasury secretary’s assurances.

[10]
“I did not hear specific measures the U.S. will be taking
to assure the safety of Chinese foreign reserves.
That is something worrisome to me,”
Yu said in an interview.

[11]
“The U.S. government should not be complacent, and it should understand that
there are alternatives to China buying U.S. bonds and bills,”
he added.
“Investment in euro assets is such an alternative,
and there are lots of raw materials we can buy, too.
China should not close its options.”

[12]
Geithner emphasized that
he has been speaking about these issues with his counterparts for several months
and said
the main purpose of the trip
was more to lay the foundation for long-term cooperation
than to discuss specific issues.

[13]
“We’re overwhelmingly focused on getting the world economy on track,”
he said.

[14]
To that end, Geithner said,
“We want to be very careful that as we come out of this
we don’t re-create the conditions established, really, in the last recovery
that led to, helped contribute to,
this extraordinary financial and economic crisis.”

[15]
During his trip,
which included meetings with President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao,
Geithner called for increased cooperation between the United States and China
in leading the world out of economic crisis.
He said the United States
would make sure its current account deficit is reduced
and would increase its savings rate.

[Pardon me if I am skeptical about this actually happening.]
And he called on China to shift from its export-driven model
to one focused on domestic consumption.
He said he supports a larger role for China
in global financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund.

[16]
“The world is not going to be able to look to the United States
as it was able to do in the last several recoveries
and expect consumption in the United States to lead the world out of this,”
Geithner said.



2009-06-16-NYT-BRIC
Emerging Powers Prepare to Meet in Russia
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
New York Times, 2009-06-16

MOSCOW —

[1]
Leaders of some of the world’s most powerful economies
are gathering on Tuesday
to plot how they can exert more control over the global financial system
as it takes its first wobbly steps toward recovery.

[2]
Yet not an American or Western European will be in the bunch.

[3]
The first summit meeting of the so-called BRIC group —
Brazil, Russia, India and China —
is intended to underscore
the rising economic clout of these four major developing countries
and their demand for a greater voice in the world.
And Russia, the group’s host and ideological provocateur,
is especially interested in
using the summit to fire a shot across Washington’s bow.

[4]
All four countries have expressed
varying degrees of discomfort with Washington’s financial stewardship,
and are particularly concerned about the value of the dollar
at a time of rapidly mounting indebtedness in the United States.
At the same time, most economists say the BRIC countries
can do little to change
the current architecture of the global financial system,
and that the outcome of this meeting will be largely symbolic.

[5]
The BRIC countries comprise about 15 percent of the world economy
and, perhaps more important,
have about 40 percent of global currency reserves.
Brazil, India and China have also weathered the financial crisis
better than the world as a whole.

[6]
While they are far from a monolithic group,
they are generally united in their frustration with

the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency,
which enables Washington to run budget deficits
without fears of facing
the kind of budgetary day of reckoning
that other countries risk.


[7]

The excess dollars fill up in foreign central banks,
leaving those countries with a difficult choice:
reinvesting the dollars in United States securities
or
holding them and facing an increase in the value of their own currencies,
making their products less competitive in world markets.


[8]
While there have been periodic complaints about the dollar through the years,
the criticisms from the BRIC countries have become
more frequent and more acerbic lately,
and have included calls for a supranational currency to replace the dollar.

[9]
In March, the prime minister of China, Wen Jiabao,
expressed concerns about United States budget deficits,
suggesting they might lead to inflation,
a weaker dollar and rising yields on Treasuries,
any one of which would hurt
China’s $1 trillion investment in American government debt.
Later that month, the head of the Chinese central bank called for
a new international currency to replace the dollar.

[10]
For the Kremlin,
undermining the dollar as the prevailing medium of exchange
reflects a broader Russian belief
that the United States exercises a dominance in global affairs
that exceeds its diminishing power.


[11]
“What we need are financial institutions of a completely new type,
where particular political issues and motives, and particular countries,
will not dominate,”
Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, said this month.



[12]
Senior officials in most of the BRIC governments —
India, which does not depend as much on trade, is something of an exception —
assert that
while the United States has acted irresponsibly over the last 30 years
by amassing too much debt,
they will be the ones who suffer.


[13]
“The world economy should not remain entangled, so directly and unnecessarily,
in the vicissitudes of a single great world power,”
said Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Brazil’s minister for strategic affairs.
“The developing countries should not have to see
painfully accumulated hard-currency reserves
fall under the shadow of major devaluations.”


[14]
China, Brazil and Russia have said recently that
they will purchase notes from the International Monetary Fund
to begin diversifying their reserves.



[15]
Still, the reality is that
even many forceful critics of the dollar
see no immediate alternative to it
as the vehicle for international trade.
No other markets in the world
have the depth and liquidity of those in the United States,
experts say.
[I wonder how many experts will go on the record on that,
and what penalty, if any, they will face if they are wrong.
If they are wrong, it is the American people who will suffer,
not the experts.]


[16]
And the four BRIC countries, while newly emboldened,
have starkly different economies and relationships with the United States, complicating their attempts to unite.
Each of the four also has a currency
that either has been historically unstable
or is not easily convertible.

[17]
“Between the BRIC countries, there is really little in common,”
said Yevgeny G. Yasin,
head of research at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow.
“Each of them has its own destiny,
its own special character,
and it will be much more difficult for them to agree among themselves
than separately with Western countries.”

[18]
China, whose economy dwarfs those of the other three,
depends on the export of manufactured goods to the United States and Europe.
Russia sells oil, natural gas and other natural resources abroad.
Brazil focuses on agricultural exports,
while India’s growth has been largely based on its domestic market.

[19]
The four countries do not necessarily do much business with one another.
Only two percent of China’s trade last year was with Russia,
though the countries are neighbors, according to official statistics.

[20]
At the same time,
Brazil announced this year that
China had surpassed the United States as its largest trading partner,
and said last month that
they would look for ways to finance their trade without the dollar.

[21]
The very notion of the BRIC nations
was conceived in 2001 by an economist for Goldman Sachs,
and only then embraced by the countries themselves.
Their leaders have conducted informal discussions before,
but the event on Tuesday in the central Russian city of Yekaterinburg
will mark their first formal gathering, officials said.

[22]
Russia has sent somewhat mixed signals recently
regarding how determined it is to confront the dollar.
Last week,
it announced that it would purchase bonds from the International Monetary Fund,
but then the finance minister, Aleksei L. Kudrin, acknowledged that
the world was not yet ready for another reserve currency.

[23]
Vladimir A. Mau, rector of the Academy of National Economy,
a government advisory organization in Moscow,
said Russia and the other BRIC countries had legitimate worries that
the United States was piling up too much debt.
But Mr. Mau said that at this point,
he doubted that the Kremlin had any recourse.

[24]
Mr. Unger, the Brazilian minister, agreed, saying that
the BRIC countries do not see replacing the dollar with
“heavy-handed, bureaucratic machinery,”
such as a global, European-style Central Bank.

[25]
In China,
popular sympathies are with Russian and Brazilian demands
for a robust challenge to American control,
analysts said.

[26]
Yet there has been no consensus on
what a new financial system should look like,
and China’s dependence on exports
and enormous holdings of dollar-denominated assets
give it a vested interest in the status quo,
leaving China’s leaders reluctant to pursue far-reaching changes.

[27]
While China’s official news media often give sizable attention
to coming international gatherings,
they have offered little coverage of the BRIC summit meeting.

[28]
Xu Xiaonian,
an economist at the China Europe International Business School in Shanghai,
said the silence reflected a desire not to raise hopes for the meeting.
“What can they agree on? So little,” Mr. Xu said.
“This meeting is more symbolic than of real effect.”



2009-06-17-NYT-BRIC
Emerging Economies Meet in Russia
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
New York Times, 2009-06-17

YEKATERINBURG, Russia —

[1]
Leaders of the four largest emerging market economies
discussed ways to reduce their reliance on the United States
at their first formal summit meeting on Tuesday.
But they concluded with only a cautious statement suggesting
a move away from the dollar’s role in global commerce
and a call for
greater representation of developing countries
in global financial institutions.


...

2009-06-24-WP-Faiola-fading-of-dollars-dominance
Fading of the Dollar's Dominance
Other Nations See Opening to Boost Their Currencies
By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post, 2009-06-24

[1]
The days of calling the dollar almighty may be numbered.

[2]
Since World War II,
when the dollar eclipsed the British pound as the king of world currencies,
the United States has reaped the rewards of its monetary strength.
The greenback’s sense of indestructibility
allowed the U.S. government to borrow cheaply
and gave rise to an era of rich American globetrotters
toting the world’s most easily convertible form of cash.

[3]
But the financial crisis that started in the United States
is dramatically intensifying the debate over the future of the dollar,
and whether it can, or should, remain at the top of the financial food chain.
Although a meaningful shift away from the dollar is likely to take years or more,
some analysts believe that the debate is now reaching a tipping point.

[4]
Last week, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China --
whose governments are some of the world’s largest dollar holders --
jointly declared the need for
a “more diversified international monetary system,” sparking a drop in the greenback on world markets.
In recent months, China in particular
has led a campaign for a new world monetary order,
arguing that the financial crisis has exposed profound vulnerabilities
in the U.S. economy and financial system.
Those flaws, critics argue, show it is simply too risky for the world’s central banks to rely largely on the dollar for their global reserves.

[5]
At the same time, Beijing has taken unprecedented steps to increase the international role of its own currency, the yuan, to a level commensurate with China’s relatively new status as a major economic power.
In the coming weeks, the International Monetary Fund --
the institution charged with
the monitoring and stability of the global economy --
will issue a vast amount of currency-like assets known as Special Drawing Rights,
which some analysts see as a long-term substitute for the hordes of dollar reserves being held by central banks around the world.
Some now envision that the dollar will fall from
its recent levels of 60 to 65 percent of international reserves
to less than 50 percent a decade from now.

[6]
A diminishing of the dollar’s global role
has far-reaching implications for the United States.
The value of the dollar versus other major currencies could markedly drop
as it slips from supremacy,
making millions of Americans overseas feel poorer
while potentially fueling a new golden era for U.S. exporters
as American goods become more cost-competitive.
The U.S. government may also be forced to pay higher rates to investors
when selling, for instance, Treasury bonds to raise cash --
making it far more costly in the future
to cover the kind of massive stimulus spending
the government is now undertaking.

[7]
“The dollar’s global status has allowed the U.S.
to have a free pass on financing our deficit
as opposed to countries like Brazil,
who are punished by international currency investors for risky behavior,”
said Martin Weiss, author of the “Ultimate Depression Survival Guide.”
“But if the dollar is no longer the currency everybody wants or must have
to continue doing business,
that is going to be much, much harder to do.”

[8]
Despite the current campaign to lessen the dollar’s role,
analysts note that
there has not yet been a major push by foreign governments or private investors
to shed it.
In fact, over the course of the financial crisis, the dollar --
which had been on a downward trajectory for months --
has actually strengthened against major currencies,
including its closest rival, the euro.

[9]
That is partly because even nations like China --
with the world’s largest dollar-denominated reserves,
at close to $2 trillion worth --
have shied away from dumping the dollar,
fearing it could trigger a global run
that would severely damage the value of their holdings.
Additionally, other mighty currencies like the euro
have lost their chance to claim the dollar’s crown
because their issuing nations are in even worse economic shape than the United States.
In times of crisis,
the dollar, as well as dollar-denominated U.S. Treasury bonds,
are still seen as safe havens.

[10]
“The U.S. had to screw something up
to lose the dominance of the dollar,
and you could argue that
the U.S. starting a global financial crisis
is a pretty big screw-up,”

said C. Fred Bergsten,
director of the Peterson Institute of International Economics
and a top economic official during the Carter administration.
“But the Europeans
haven’t been able to take advantage of that to advance the euro immediately,
largely because they’ve made some pretty big screw-ups themselves.”

[Bergsten’s statement is a real red herring,
as it draws reader’s attention away from
the fundamental cause of the dollar’s weakness
to an event much in the news which has little real relevance.
The fundamental cause of the dollar’s weakness is that
other nations have far more of them than they need or want.
And in turn, the reason for this is quite simply
the cumulative result of years of massive and generally growing trade imbalances.
By pointing to the financial crisis,
Bergsten hurts the attention that the real problem needs
if it is ever to be fixed.]


[11]
That said, economists including Bergsten are now saying the end of the dollar’s dominance appears increasingly inevitable. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, for instance, the British pound enjoyed a similar supremacy. It gradually lost that role as Britain’s empire crumbled, was devastated by two world wars and saw the United States emerge as the world’s dominant superpower.

[12]
By the same token, economists see the current financial crisis, and the doubts it has raised about the U.S. economy, as accelerating the creation of a new economic order. The easy monetary policy embraced by the Federal Reserve to spark a recovery -- including zero-interest rates and the printing of cash to support stimulus spending -- is also working against the strength of the dollar.

[13]
“The dollar may very well see periods of strength in the weeks and months ahead,” said Douglas Rediker, director of the Global Strategic Finance Initiative at the New America Foundation. “But in the long run, I think it is clear that it will lose some of its hegemonic status.”

[14]
This has left room for rising nations such as China to seize a broader role in the global monetary system. Though the Chinese currency remains largely non-convertible -- meaning it cannot easily be used in international transactions -- Beijing has taken steps to sign currency exchange agreements worth $95 billion with South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Belarus, Hong Kong and Argentina. Brazil and China announced in May that they are exploring a similar agreement.

[15]
Though it may take years before such agreements have any real impact on the dollar, they are coming at a time when governments around the world may find another potential substitute for their dollar reserves: the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights.

[16]
The SDRs are a currency-like asset whose value is based on the dollar, the pound, the euro and the yen. They have been issued by the IMF, albeit in highly limited form, since the 1960s to aid nations in need of reserves. In April, however, world leaders including President Obama agreed at an economic summit in London that SDRs should now be used to help stabilize the balance sheets of nations struggling to combat the current crisis.

[17]
As a result, the IMF is now set to “print” $300 billion worth of SDRs -- 10 times more than currently exist -- for distribution to nations around the globe. They will effectively be held as reserve deposits by each nation’s central bank.

[18]
Some, like Bergsten, have argued the SDRs’ role should be taken a step further, allowing them to serve as a de facto global reserve currency. Bergsten has advocated, for instance, the idea of nations such as China “trading in” their dollars for SDRs, allowing for an orderly transition away from the greenback without causing a sharp fluctuation in the dollar’s market value.

[19]
“Like it or not, the dollar is going to lose some of its global status,” Bergsten said. “So maybe it’s time we just accepted that and figured out the best and most orderly way to make that happen.”




2009-09-29-NYT-Zoellick
World Bank Head Sees Dollar’s Role Diminishing
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
New York Times, 2009-09-29

WASHINGTON —

[1]
The president of the World Bank said on Monday that
America’s days as an unchallenged economic superpower might be numbered
and that
the dollar was likely to lose its favored position
as the euro and the Chinese renminbi assume bigger roles.

[2]
“The United States would be mistaken to take for granted
the dollar’s place as the world’s predominant reserve currency,”

the World Bank president, Robert B. Zoellick,
said in a speech at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins.
“Looking forward,
there will increasingly be other options to the dollar.”

[3]
Mr. Zoellick, who previously served as the United States trade representative and as deputy secretary of state under President George W. Bush,
said that
the euro provided a “respectable alternative”
for financing international transactions
and that
there was “every reason to believe that the euro’s acceptability could grow.”

[4]
In the next 10 to 20 years, he said,
the dollar will face growing competition from China’s currency,
the renminbi.
Though Chinese leaders
have minimized their currency’s use in international transactions,
largely so they could keep greater control over exchange rates,
Mr. Zoellick said the renminbi would “evolve into a force in financial markets.”

[5]
The World Bank,
which is financed by governments around the globe
and lends money primarily to poor countries,
has no say over the economic policies of large nations or over currency matters.

[6]
But Mr. Zoellick’s comments were unusual,
in part because he seemed intent on being provocative.
He argued that
the United States and a handful of other rich nations
could no longer dominate the world economy
and suggested that America was losing its clout.

He also took issue with
a central piece of the Obama administration’s proposal
regarding the country’s financial regulatory system.

[7]
“The greenback’s fortunes will depend heavily on U.S. choices,”
Mr. Zoellick said.
“Will the United States resolve its debt problems without a resort to inflation?
Can America establish long-term discipline
over spending and its budget deficit?”


[8]
Mr. Zoellick criticized President Obama’s plan
to put the Federal Reserve in charge of reducing “systemic risk”
and to regulate institutions considered too big to fail.
Saying that Congress had become uneasy about
the Fed’s exercise of emergency powers
to bail out financial institutions and prop up credit markets,
Mr. Zoellick argued that
the Treasury rather than the Fed should get more power because
the Treasury was more accountable to Congress.

[9]
“In the United States,
it will be difficult to vest the independent and powerful technocrats
at the Federal Reserve with more authority,”
Mr. Zoellick said, adding that
“the Treasury is an executive department,
and therefore Congress and the public
can more directly oversee how it uses any added authority.”





2010-04-30-Mallaby-Euro-devaluation-deflation
Leaving the euro behind?
By Sebastian Mallaby
Washington Post, 2010-04-30

2010-04-30-Krugman-Euro
The Euro Trap
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times, 2010-04-30

...

What’s the nature of the trap?

During the years of easy money,
wages and prices in the crisis countries
rose much faster than in the rest of Europe.
Now that the money is no longer rolling in,
those countries need to get costs back in line.


[Krugman has posed this issue for the European countries,
but in fact it is equally applicable to America.
For America, the “good times” started immediately after World War II,
when America had a fantastic, and obviously,
if one thought about it, temporary advantage over the rest of the world
due to the fact that the industrial plant
in much of continental Europe, certainly in Germany, and in Japan
had been laid waste by the mass bombing conducted by the Allies
as part of their campaign against the Axis.
Further, China spent the late 1940s engaged in civil war,
then the 1950s and 1960s under Mao Tse-tung’s various anti-capitalist experiments
(including the “Cultural Revolution”).
America’s economic competition was clearly hobbled in those post-war years.

Rather than reflecting on that fact,
and viewing America’s post-war prosperity as an ephemeral windfall,
Americans took that prosperity to be
a result of America’s supposed God-given superiority,
and moved to take advantage of that prosperity in various ways.
The big industrial unions of the 1950s (UAW, USW, UMW, and so on)
escalated pay and benefits for their workers.
Subsequently, of course, that led to the near demise of much of their industry,
and, in the case of the auto industry,
pension benefits which the car companies simply cannot afford.
At the level of government,
Democratic majorities in Congress and President Johnson
enacted in 1965 the Medicaid and Medicare programs.
Now, in the 2000s,
we’ve seen how the unanticipated explosion in per-capita costs of those programs
has put the U.S. on a clear path to fiscal disaster.]






2010-11-13-Obama-on-China-U.S.-currency-comparison
Obama Ends G-20 Summit With Criticism of China
By SEWELL CHAN
New York Times, 2010-11-13

Though his own Treasury Department,
like those of prior administrations,
has certified that
China is not a “currency manipulator,”
a designation that can prompt Congressional trade action,
Mr. Obama appeared to remove
the remaining wiggle room he had on the subject of the renminbi,
declaring:
“It is undervalued.
And
China spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market
to keep it undervalued.”



[Well, excuse me.
If the statement by Obama highlighted in red above
isn’t the very definition of currency manipulation,
then what the hell is?

Just more Orwellian, Alice-in-Wonderland double-speak from our PC “elite.”
Goebbels could have done no better (or worse).]

Labels: ,