Wed. October 01, 2014 Get Published  Get Alerts
HOME  |LOGIN
ABOUT | CONTACT US | SUPPORT US
Slow Float to China

Comments(1)
By George A. Pieler and Jens F. Laurson

Is the yuan (renminbi to the cognoscenti) artificially undervalued to boost Chinese exports? Is the dollar? Does China measure up to modern standards of openness to trade and investment? Does the US? The tentative consensus is “yes”, “somewhat”, “no”, and “yes, but.” When it comes to US-China relations on currency, capital flows, and trade, China is pulling up the rear, but neither country comes to this debate with clean hands.

Still, there is reason for US concern. China does not let market forces value its currency. Instead it dictates a narrow trading band for buying and selling renminbi. Although China has been very slow in opening its own, huge market to imports, US exports to China “have almost doubled in the past five years” (Bloomberg). That doesn’t prove the bilateral trade imbalance is caused by controlling its currency, but it’s consistent with that narrative.

The yuan has been overvalued by as much as 40% relative to the idealized (but calculable) value based on its economic fundamentals. It remains overvalued by some 12% according to the US Congressional Research Service. Although the Chinese currency has declined relative to the dollar as of late (helped by a flight-to-safety as the Euro threatens to implode), since 2007 it has risen by over 20 percent. During the same period the dollar has fluctuated too: a significant decline during the 2007-2008 recession; strengthening more recently.

Fluctuated relative to what, you ask: Relative to gold, the euro, and (until recently) the yuan. With so many geopolitical factors in the US, Europe and Asia playing into this, it becomes hard to isolate the artificial-currency-management. That’s why it seems overkill for Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney and other politicians and commentators to keep putting so much emphasis on formally labeling China a currency-manipulator and using that to impose compensatory tariffs on Chinese exports to the US. The Romney gambit echoes legislation passed by the Senate last October which directs the Treasury to make that currency-manipulator determination and impose countervailing tariffs.

The Obama administration meanwhile has been carefully triangulating on the issue of economic relations with China. The official US position is that China manipulates its currency (which should be allowed to float freely on global markets), but that the problem is under control right now and that China’s moves towards letting the yuan decline in value are most welcome.

Yet the Obama administration is hitting China in a more sensitive area: threatening it with penalties for selling solar panels and wind turbines below-cost on the US market. These moves play into the administration’s narrative that failing clean-energy subsidies are the result of forces beyond its control—Chinese dumping, not the consequence of its ideologically, rather than economically founded alternative energy schemes. Unsurprisingly China hit right back with a WTO complaint arguing the US is illegally subsidizing its clean-energy industries across-the-board. (Incidentally, they have a point.)

When economic times are tough, China-bashing becomes an inevitable election year activity. That isn’t surprising, but it begs the question whether it will be tempered by the US’ economic self-interest, and whether the Chinese response will be constrained by prudence.

In that regard, at least the new Chinese WTO complaint brings in an independent arbiter that can help avert all-out trade war. The US anti-dumping complaints—outgrowth of that election year dynamic—are different, and may be cause for concern. Not the least because so many US companies save money using Chinese imports as industrial inputs (including those cheap solar panels), meaning there is a serious blowback risk in going after China-trade for domestic political gain. Higher-cost industrial inputs from China may produce worse economic results for the US than any actual or real gains from restraints on Chinese dumping might offset.

Overlaying all these disputes is a larger issue: will the dollar survive as the world’s reserve currency and will the yuan supplant it (or supplement it) in that function? That is not a predictable event, and China has only begun to open up its capital markets and let the yuan trade more freely. As Gordon Chang points out, “as long as Beijing depends on investment fueled by cheap money to create growth, it must maintain its controls [on yuan convertibility]”. Since China’s financial markets are considerably less open than its goods and services markets. China’s yuan remains some distance from being a viable reserve currency with a stable and predictable store of value. The recent launch of direct yen-yuan trading in Tokyo and Shanghai however, demonstrates China’s increasingly global aspirations for its currency.

The dollar’s future status is also unclear, as US domestic priorities trump reserve-currency concerns for the foreseeable future. The US Federal Reserve is determined to keep interest rates low, regardless of the global economic consequences. The turmoil in Europe has conveniently made this goal relatively easy to achieve without the dollar losing preferred status. No crisis lasts forever though, and no one disputes the global economy is rebalancing itself in a more Asia-centric direction. This is one reason Nobel Prize-winning Canadian economist Robert Mundell predicts a future reserve currency basket embracing the dollar, the yuan, the yen, and others.

Two lessons can be taken away from this. First: Governments do not make economic decisions—they make political decisions with economic consequences. Second: No government, however aggressive in managing its economic relations with other nations and private investors, is immune from the magic of the marketplace. China may limit the trading range of the yuan, but it can’t achieve the global status it wants without relaxing those limits or without offering greater certainty to foreign investors that the state will not clamp down on trade and finance.

Nor can the US forever maintain a zero-interest rate policy without suffering consequences: either inflation, flight from the dollar, or massive misallocation of resources. Much is made of US dependence on China to buy up its debt so that it can keep running trillion-dollar annual deficits in a desperate pursuit of fiscal stimulus. Yes, China holds a big chunk of that debt, around 11 percent. It is not clear, though, why China would suddenly dump US debt to make a grand gesture of defiance. As much as the US wants China to buy its debt, China wants to buy that debt for its own investment-diversification purposes and it depends on the US as its primary export market. It is a situation of mutual benefit. It’s also something of a constraint on US efforts to pressure China on human rights, strategic relations (e.g. North Korea), and economic openness, which may seem a nifty bonus for the Chinese government. But mostly it helps keep US-China disputes from getting wholly out of hand.

Until and unless global finance finds itself a new anchoring device (that currency basket, or gold, or some other agreed-on secure measure of value to govern currency and monetary relations), currency manipulation in a myriad of forms will be an unavoidable part of the political economy. In the meantime, the safety-valves provided by the WTO, the G20, and other forums for airing transnational disputes ought to keep the US-China friction at manageable levels where mutual dependence doesn’t. But really, given that close interdependence of the two nations it’s hard to avoid the slogan: US and China—perfect together.


George Pieler, is an attorney and policy consultant. Jens F. Laurson is Editor-at-Large of the Center for International Relations’ International Affairs Forum.

Comments in Chronological order (1 total comments)

Report Abuse
Sat, June 23, 2012 03:39 PM (about 19911 hours ago)
>US and China—perfect together

No, not really - one's a liberal democracy (whatever its faults), and the other one is a one-party dictatorship. The US (and the rest of the Western world) puts up with China's government because
1. Cheap Chinese labor makes it possible for us to buy cheap stuff
2. China buys our bonds in order to make it possible to finance trillion-dollar deficits and
3. We would be crazy to ignore a market of one billion people.
Please don't mistake that for "perfect together". And if you don't believe me, ask any of her neighbors, especially those around the South China Sea - they don't like China's government any more than we do, and would also laugh at the idea of that China can be "perfect together" with anyone.
 
Quick Links Twitter Face Book Get Alerts Contact Us Enter Ia-Forum Student Award Competition
International Affairs
Forum - (2014 Issue 1)

Available Now
ANNOUNCEMENTS
THE WORLD'S DISCUSSING...
12/15/2014: Modern Times in North Korea: Scenes from its Founding Years, 1945-1950 More
12/01/2014: Waking from the Dream: the Struggle for Civil Rights in the Shadow of Martin Luther King More
11/17/2014: The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the Revolutionary World, and the Fate of Empire More
10/27/2014: Sino-Soviet Relations and the Dilemmas of Socialist Bloc Cooperation: Czechoslovaks in Shanghai, 1956-57 More
10/20/2014: Empowering Revolution: America, Poland, and the Moderates who Ended the Cold War More
10/14/2014: Scaling Up or Expanding Out? What Happens When Development Programs Grow More
10/06/2014: Is there Hope for Central American Youth? More
10/06/2014: A World More Concrete: Real Estate and the Remaking of Jim Crow South Florida More
10/05/2014: Chinese Companies in Latin America: Economic and Strategic Dimensions More
10/03/2014: "The Last Empire: The Final Days of the Soviet Union" More
10/02/2014: Four Keys for Re-launching the OAS More
10/01/2014: "Putin's Kleptocracy - Who Owns Russia?" More
10/01/2014: Re-examining Smart Power: How Electric Utilities Can Respond to Climate Change Challenges More
10/01/2014: Medical Marijuana Laws and Teen Marijuana Use More
09/30/2014: Meet the Campaign Advisors: A Conversation with Rubens Barbosa, Campaign Advisor for Aécio Neves Social Democracy Party (PSDB) More
09/30/2014: CEF Director Jennifer Turner was Interviewed by BBC on UN New York Climate Conference More
09/30/2014: Fraternal Support: The East German ‘Stasi’ and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War More
09/30/2014: Development blog: Moving on… More
09/30/2014: Russia's 'Potemkin Village' Elections More
09/30/2014: The Breach: Ukraine's Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum More
09/30/2014: Ghannouchi: Middle East at Crossroads More
09/30/2014: We Bomb ISIL: Then What? More
09/30/2014: Addicted to Putin More
09/30/2014: Hans-Werner Sinn: The Euro Trap: On Bursting Bubbles, Budgets, and Belief More
09/30/2014: Bilateral Security Agreement: A New Era of Afghan-U.S. Cooperation More
09/30/2014: Bilateral Security Agreement: A New Era of Afghan-U.S. Cooperation More
09/30/2014: Development blog: Understanding Latin America’s Financial Inclusion Gap More
09/30/2014: A Guide for Communicating Synthetic Biology More
09/30/2014: Rethinking US Foreign Assistance: Running the Hurdles: A Sneak Peek into MCC’s Upcoming Country Eligibility Decisions More
09/30/2014: Dairy Policy in Canada and the United States: Protection at Home or International Trade? More
09/30/2014: Iran’s Dinner Diplomacy More
09/30/2014: Performance and Power from Kabuki to Go Go More
09/30/2014: Supply and Demand: The Present and Future of U.S. Energy Policy More
09/30/2014: The Roots of Hong Kong Protest More
09/30/2014: Learning English and Leadership in Houston More
09/30/2014: Is China Serious About Liberalizing the Renminbi? More
09/30/2014: Government Debt Management at the Zero Lower Bound More
09/30/2014: Debt Management in an Era of Quantitative Easing: What Should the Treasury and the Fed Do? More
09/30/2014: Government Debt Management at the Zero Lower Bound More
09/30/2014: Debt Management in an Era of Quantitative Easing: What Should the Treasury and the Fed Do? More
09/30/2014: Let the Bank of England Take Note: The Risks of Raising Interest Rates Too Soon Are Greater than Inflation Overshooting More
09/30/2014: Global Prosperity Wonkcast: Unpacking WHO’s Shocking Ebola Maps–Mead Over More
09/30/2014: Inside Out, India and China : Local Politics Go Global - with a new preface More
09/29/2014: Development blog: New Report Gets Down to Business on Impact Investing and Development More
09/29/2014: Venezuelan U.N. Security Council spot could be thorn in the side for U.S. officials More
09/29/2014: CGD Event: Development Co-operation Report 2014 and Why Forests? Why Now? More
09/29/2014: Ukrainian Journalist Mustafa Nayyem to Receive 2014 Ion Ratiu Democracy Award More
09/29/2014: The Strategic Meaning of China-ROK Relations More
09/29/2014: The Strategic Meaning of China-ROK Relations More
09/29/2014: Public Schooling: War without End More
More...
About | Contact Us | Support Us | Terms and Conditions

All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2002 - 2014