Showing posts with label global trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global trade. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Obama Seeks Chinese Currency Changes

President Barack Obama addressed China’s role in the global economy during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Hawaii. The president urged Chinese policymakers to allow the country’s currency to appreciate at a faster pace so as to rebalance mutual benefits in trade and industrial contracting between China and other countries. Chinese president Hu Jintao argued, however, that China had no significant part in crafting global economic policy and felt little need to abide by its rules, and intimated he hoped his country would have a larger role in shaping policy moving forward. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

You’d think that there’s at least a little bit of a “Good Cop, Bad Cop” dynamic going on right now when President Obama talks to the Chinese about letting their currency strengthen at a faster pace. Of course, Obama is the good cop here with just about every GOP presidential hopeful playing the alternate role and one can easily imagine Chinese President Hu Jintao being told over the weekend, “Hey, I’m about the best friend you’re ever going to have in Washington. How about a little appreciation, currency-wise?



As Hu made clear yesterday, from the perspective of the Chinese, they had no part in making any of the rules in the current global monetary system and feel little compulsion to play by them. Mindful of the Japan experience in the late-1980s when strong currency appreciation led to massive asset bubbles and two lost decades, they’re not likely to simply comply with the wishes of the West when it comes to their currency.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

The Economic Consequences Of Unfair Trade Practices

Peter Morici argues that China's currency manipulation and unfair trade practices are cutting away hundreds of billions from US GDP. It may be impossible to restore jobs to pre-recession levels unless the US addresses trade issues with China. See the following post from The Street.

No economic policy could better serve Americans than genuine free trade. But open trade policies are failing Americans.

Free trade is a compelling idea: Let each nation do more of what it does best and specialization will raise productivity and incomes.

Americans aren't sharing in those benefits because President Obama, like President Bush, permits China and others to cheat on the rules, unchallenged, to the detriment of the U.S. interests he was elected to champion.

The World Trade Organization has greatly reduced tariffs, prohibits virtually all export subsidies, and regulates other national policies that could subvert trade, such as health and product safety standards arbitrarily slanted to favor domestic suppliers.

For these rules to optimize trade, raise productivity and boost incomes, exchange rates must adjust to reasonably reflect production costs. To buy Chinese televisions, Americans must be able to purchase yuan with dollars; however, an artificially strong dollar that overprices U.S. tractors and software in China will unravel the benefits of trade by denying Americans opportunities to export to pay for those televisions.

Exchange rates are established in currency markets, created by businesses trading through major financial institutions. Unfortunately, China and several other Asian governments blatantly manipulate those markets without a credible U.S. response and with ruinous consequences for American workers.

The United States annually exports $1.6 trillion in goods and services, and these finance a like amount of imports. This raises U.S. gross domestic product by about $170 billion, because workers are about 10% more productive in export industries, such as software, than in import-competing industries, such as apparel.

Unfortunately, U.S. imports exceed exports by another $400 billion, and workers released from making those products go into non-trade-competing industries, such as retailing, in which productivity is at least 50% lower. This slashes gross domestic product by about $200 billion, overwhelming the gains from trade, and requires workers displaced by imports to accept lower wages.

The trade deficit creates an excess supply of dollars in international currency markets, as Americans offer more dollars to purchase foreign products than foreigners demand to purchase U.S. products.

Simple supply and demand should drive down the value of the dollar against the yuan and other currencies, make U.S. imports more expensive and exports cheaper, and reduce or eliminate the trade deficit. But the Chinese government subverts this process by habitually printing and selling yuan for dollars in currency markets, keeping its currency and exports artificially cheap.

Currency manipulation creates a 25% subsidy on China's exports, and other Asian countries are impelled to follow similar policies, lest their exports lose competitiveness to Chinese products.

Also, huge trade imbalances between Asia and the West, perpetuated by currency mercantilism, create an imbalance in demand -- a shortage of demand for the goods and services produced in the United States and Europe, and artificially robust demand for products made in China and elsewhere in Asia.

Consequently, to keep the U.S. economy going, Americans must both borrow from foreigners and spend too much, as they did through 2008, or their government must amass huge budget deficits by borrowing from abroad, as it is now does thanks to stimulus spending and the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

In the bargain, the United States sends manufacturing jobs to Asia in industries that would be competitive, but for rigged exchange rates. The trade deficit slices $400 billion to $600 billion off GDP, and Americans suffer unemployment above 10%.

China grows at nearly 10% a year and makes American diplomats look like fools for advocating free markets as a growth policy.

Campaigning for the presidency, Barack Obama promised to do something about Chinese currency manipulation. Instead, like a good supplicant, he now thanks Chinese officials for buying U.S. Treasury securities.

China's development policies make its leaders look smart but nothing makes them look like geniuses better than an American president who appeases their beggar-thy-neighbor policies.

It will be impossible for the United States to create the 9 million jobs needed to bring unemployment down to pre-recession levels without taking on China's currency manipulation and other unfair trade practices.

For that Americans may need to wait for a better president, one with the courage to stand up to China.

This post has been republished from The Street.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Global Trade Decline Worse Than Great Depression

According to Princeton economist Paul Krugman, global trade has fallen greater than during the Great Depression suggesting that the world economies are more intertwined than ever before. With consumer spending down, exports down, and government spending unsustainable, it may fall on business investment to grow the economy (using the Mundell-Fleming model Y = C + I + G + NX ). See the following post from Economist's View for more on this.

Paul Krugman notes the collapse
in world trade:

Paul Krugman: In Trade, ‘It’s Not the Great Depression — It’s Worse’, Real Time Economics: ...Paul Krugman .... offered a few comments about ... world trade. And the picture he painted was not a pretty one.

“When it comes to international trade, actually it’s not the Great Depression, it’s worse,” he said, presenting charts showing the decline in global trade activity falling much more steeply in the current downturn than during the Depression.

“The scale of the collapse of world trade has been so large that it has produced a degree of international linkage that surpasses what even the pessimists imagined,” he said. “World trade acted as a transmission mechanism,” spreading economic distress “even to those countries that had relatively healthy financial systems,” such as Germany.

“We really are one world economy in a way that has never been true before,” he said.
Despite the collapse in trade, Krugman downplayed concerns about protectionism. ...

Felix Salmon adds that:

[Krugman] also had a good line about economic forecasters, who have us returning to full employment in about five years just because all forecasts tend to bake in a return to “normal” in five years. Krugman’s more pessimistic than that, however: “We almost certainly have a long, long haul before we’re fully recovered,” he said. A good part of the reason for that is what has happened to international trade — it “has fallen through the floor in a way that it literally never has before, including in the Great Depression”. And building it back up is going to be very hard indeed.


This goes back to something I should have emphasized in Robert Solow's comments yesterday. Using Y = C + I + G + NX as a reference point, if growth in C falls, as we expect, if G cannot grow much more and if NX cannot take up the slack, also as we expect, then can I grow fast enough to make up the difference? Solow believes:
We have to expect consumer spending to be weak..., not just for six months, but for the next few years. It will not be as strong a driving force as it has been the past several years. Something has to take its place. Government spending can't, since government will have a hard time financing the inevitable deficits and is not in a position to aggressively increase its deficit spending.

We need business investment to support the economy. We have every reason to want to divert our resources toward secure and renewable sources of energy, new materials and environmental improvement. ... I also think it's the job of the federal government to shift incentives, from incentives to consume more to incentives to invest more. Obama ran on this kind of platform, and if he can put some money behind that fundamentally correct view, he might generate something. It's going to take more than that to replace 5 percent of GDP, but that would be a neat place to start.

There must be a way to bring the Republicans on board with plans to increase business investment? Will a focus on "secure and renewable sources of energy, new materials and environmental improvement" spoil whatever cooperation might have existed among Republicans for measures to enhance business investment? In any case, we need to do our best to maintain G, and another round of stimulus measures would help, while we give I the time (and the incentives) it needs to grow robustly.

This post has been republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.