The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I don't think at all, that the Chinese gov is happy with the current situation. They just don't know how to come out. This is of course to some degree speculation, but it is clear, that abolish the current arrangement would create distortion in China. It is as well clear, that currently some investment is done in China, which won't be profitable any more, once the exchange rate moves significantly up. And keeping export subsidies going indefinitely is expensive.
The CA deficit of the US is much larger than the Chinese surplus. -> The responsibility for the US CA deficit is certainly not mainly China's. China-EU trade is bigger than China-US trade. -> Everything which is due to China in the US economy should occur here, too (yes pressure on wage bargaining power is in the EU, too, but the CA deficit is much smaller). Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
When in reality the policy push for more "flexibility" in fact undermined much of the social infrastructure that gave such strong support for the "innovation", so the idea that those were intrinsic "natural" features of the US economy, entirely independent of government policy in terms of providing social infrastructure, was just wishful thinking.
The Chinese government, first and foremost, wants to avoid the mass unemployment that would result if growth dropped down to a sustained rate of 3% or 4% ... so, yes, of course they are not happy with every consequence of their current policy, but they are only going to move to an alternate policy if they think that either the growth potential of the current policy regime has run its course, or that there is an alternate policy regime that offers at least the same growth potential and other benefits on top.
On the US current account, no, the trade deficit with the neo-mercantalists do not directly account for the whole trade deficit. However, between the direct trade deficits with the neo-mercantalists and the side-effect on the US trade deficit of the artificially high value of the US$ that the neo-mercantalist pegs helped to maintain for so long, a lot of the push of the current account deficit beyond a sustainable range certainly can be traced back to the neo-mercantalists.
The other side of the push of the current account deficit into the unsustainable range is, of course, the ever-increasing sectoral deficit in energy. That was rising on the back of increased volume of net energy imports, and is now getting further amplified by the decline in terms of trade for energy importing nations. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Actually as the US CA deficit was until recently larger than official financing of it, private investors must have believed as well in superior returns in the US. Otherwise the official inflows would have been accompangnied by private outflows, as it happens about since last summer, when the credit crisis became publicly aware. This happens as well currently in the Euroarea, where private money flows largely out, while official money comes in.
I responded originally because it seemed you give the Chinese kind of a moral responsibility for the current situation in the US. Besides that the mercantilist policy has elevated hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty, this was an opportunity - a risky one, but still - to make large investments into the future with low interest rates and low inflation at the same time in the US. And it were not only private people who borrowed the money, but as well the gov, which obviously believes, that the future lies in a superior military. Without Chinese financing, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be much more painful for the US tax payer. And to use this oppurtunity that way, was a decision made in the US, not in China. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
And of course, there are the capital flows still ongoing, even if not as great as in the earlier years of the decade, where Euro-zone based companies buy out Euro-zone assets owned by US-based companies ... that is a capital flow into the US, but rather than being based on any assessment of the long term appeal of the US as an investment proposition, is rather a legacy of past overseas investment by US firms.
On the moral responsibility of the Chinese government ... consequences for internal imperialism policies in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang ... that would be moral responsibility. Impact of a neo-mercantalist currency policy to export unemployment to a nation whose ruling elite seems positively eager to import unemployment ... given the vulnerability of many of those hardest hit, there's a clear moral responsibility there, but its hard to see how it can be laid at the feet of the Chinese. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by gmoke - Jun 6
by Oui - Jun 158 comments
by Oui - Jun 14
by Oui - Jun 13
by Oui - Jun 12
by Oui - Jun 11
by Oui - Jun 104 comments
by Oui - Jun 101 comment
by Oui - Jun 99 comments
by Oui - Jun 93 comments
by Oui - Jun 86 comments
by Oui - Jun 717 comments
by Oui - Jun 62 comments
by Oui - Jun 58 comments
by Oui - Jun 421 comments