________________________________ Note: The author of this message
has chosen not to reveal an email address.
You won't be able to reply to the author directly.
________________________________
The lack of internationalism is hopelessly short-sighted. All the
evidence about the aftermaths of credit crunches where there are
high levels of private indebtedness is that bank lending grows at
a quarter or less of the rate it grew at beforehand, a hugely
depressive effect on the economy. But this is a synchronised credit
crunch with a synchronised global slowdown in credit; the depressive
effect will be global.
_______________________
If the US declares economic war on China, we should all tremble
o Will Hutton o The Observer, Sunday 28 March 2010
In the darkest hours of the financial crisis in the autumn of 2008,
it was obvious that all nations' economic destinies were intertwined.
Today, that sense of a collective global economic interest is
receding. On 15 April, a decision in Washington will be taken, the
impact of which will be a sharp reminder than in 2010 all still
connects. The United States is to rule, unilaterally, whether China
is unfairly manipulating its currency against the dollar to promote
its exports; if the case is accepted, it's a de facto declaration
of economic war and a signal that now it is every country for itself.
The Americans aren't just making a noise. They will back their
judgment with a tariff on Chinese imports into the US and China is
unlikely to back down. It will fight fire with fire. Other countries,
worried that the Americans and Chinese will dump goods on them that
were destined for the Chinese and American markets, will feel it
is legitimate to protect themselves in turn.
Britain's export markets, open for two generations, will regress
towards the closure of the 1930. Hopes of economic recovery will
be dashed.
It is not just the US and China that are more economically nationalist.
The Europeans finally arrived at a deal to help a Greece stricken
with a colossal budget deficit last week, but it was hardly an
exercise in European solidarity. Germany dragged its feet and only
signed up if the IMF led the negotiations and stumped up a third
of any bailout funds; there was no hint that Germany itself might
increase public borrowing to reflate its economy to help other
eurozone countries in trouble. It was Germany first.
The lack of internationalism is hopelessly short-sighted. All the
evidence about the aftermaths of credit crunches where there are
high levels of private indebtedness is that bank lending grows at
a quarter or less of the rate it grew at beforehand, a hugely
depressive effect on the economy. But this is a synchronised credit
crunch with a synchronised global slowdown in credit; the depressive
effect will be global. The temptation for any single country to use
trade and currency policy to capture more of the stagnant pool of
jobs is ever-present it is what the Chinese have been doing for
years but when national economies were booming the impact could
be shrugged off. Not today.
In Washington, patience is at an end at China's readiness to export
unemployment to the US where the rate is already over 10%. There
was open dismay at Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's recent claim to
China's National Peoples Congress that countries such as the US,
which want China to lift its currency and depreciate their own are
protectionist. Chinese foreign currency reserves are climbing by
$40bn a month. Already, total reserves top $2.4 trillion.
Reserves can only grow so much faster than China's current account
surpluses because China is printing more of its own currency to
supply to world markets to keep its exchange rate down. Put another
way, China is rigging its currency to a degree not paralleled in
modern times.
The issue unites Democrats and Republicans. In the New York Times
recently, Paul Krugman urged that on 15 April Obama act by slapping
on a temporary tariff, as Nixon did on European imports in 1971.
The notion that the Chinese have the Americans over a barrel because
they finance America's deficits is wrong, argued Krugman. China
needs the US to keep its markets open.
Krugman is right that China needs to change its policy. But the
risk is that unilaterally slapping on tariffs could be self-defeating,
causing the world to retreat into protection, competitive devaluation
and prolonged recession. A far cleverer strategy would be to try
for a global deal, as urged by Michael Pettis, of Carnegie's China
Programme. China needs to be given time to reduce its dependence
on exports and build its domestic spending, running at risibly low
levels. This means boosting workers' wages, probably allowing trade
unions, establishing property rights as collateral for borrowing
and permitting its currency to rise.
If China gives that commitment, argues Pettis, the US should reply
by saying it will maintain high government borrowing to keep American
demand buoyant even as private credit grows slowly. It will keep
its markets open. The EU should be part of the bargain, too, with
the German government in particular spending and borrowing to
maintain demand, and Britain taking an even more gradualist approach
to lowering its deficit than the one outlined by Alistair Darling
in Wednesday's budget. The aim is to keep global public deficits
up to compensate for reduced private credit growth while China
adjusts its exchange rate. Thus the world might avert trade war.
I like Pettis's grand bargain, but the chances of it happening are
close to zero. First, Obama has to take the risk of trying and of
being snubbed by both China and Germany. Reforms such as extending
property rights or encouraging worker power directly threaten
one-party rule in China, which is why they are resisted. Thus China
chose to reflate through investment rather than reform in 2009,
increasing its reliance on exports. It is mercantilist, in that it
wants to trade one way, because it is an authoritarian state. The
party could thus never agree to its side of any bargain. Neither,
after last week's dealings over Greece, would Germany's chancellor
Angela Merkel. She hasn't got the imagination to be part of a global
bargain to lift the threat of trade war. Obama might be tempted to
try, but the political risks of rebuff are too high. Equally, he
can't allow China to carry on stealing US jobs. I suspect he will
tell China it has six months to change its policy or else.
For years, we have assumed that trade and globalisation are an
inevitable part of the landscape. They are not. China and Germany
exploit the global system without accepting reciprocal responsibilities
to manage it. It cannot go on.
The deficit countries, notably the US but also ourselves to a degree,
can no longer play the role we used to as importers of last resort.
Britain has to build its productive and innovative capacity as does
the US. Economic rebalancing has to be both domestic and international
with give and take on both sides.
The trouble is that neither Germany nor China sees their role in
this way. The emerging consensus in America is that only strong-arm
tactics will persuade them to change, thus the case for tariffs to
leverage the international economic rebalancing that is otherwise
being avoided. Britain is particularly exposed. In the 1930s, we
could shelter behind a British-devised tariff cast round the empire.
Today, we are not even in the euro. Darling's budget, and the debate
about what he should cut and how fast he should do it, presumes the
world in the years ahead will get back to and stay "normal". That
seems ever more improbable. In which case what is Plan B?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/28/will-hutton-china...
__._,_.___ Reply to
sender<mailto:?subject=If%20the%20US%20declares%20economic%20war%20on%20China
,%20we%20should%20all%20tremble> | Reply to
group<mailto:southn...@yahoogroups.com?subject=If%20the%20US%20declares%20eco
nomic%20war%20on%20China,%20we%20should%20all%20tremble> | Reply
via web
post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwcnBlcnUyBF9TAz
k3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzMjQ4NDgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNDExBG1zZ0lkAzc4MTYEc2VjA2Z
0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjY5NzU2ODM4?act=reply&messageNum=7816> |
Start a New
Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbGo5M21nBF9TA
zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzMjQ4NDgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNDExBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cG
MEc3RpbWUDMTI2OTc1NjgzOA--> Messages in this
topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/message/7816;_ylc=X3oDMTM0bnRiZ
W5qBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzMjQ4NDgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNDExBG1zZ0lkAzc4MT
YEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjY5NzU2ODM4BHRwY0lkAzc4MTY-> (1)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your
Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZ3ZndW5pBF9TAzk3Mz
U5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzMjQ4NDgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNDExBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3R
pbWUDMTI2OTc1NjgzOA--> The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************************
******
[http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDM
TJkNjgwdG5iBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzMjQ4NDgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNDExBHNlYw
NmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY5NzU2ODM4> Switch to:
Text-Only<mailto:southnews-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Deliv
ery%20Format:%20Traditional>, Daily
Digest<mailto:southnews-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Di
gest>
Unsubscribe<mailto:southnews-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
Terms of Use<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
.
__,_._,___
