The Belgravia Dispatch: Yuan Point of View, Part 2

April 21, 2005

Yuan Point of View, Part 2

If the Bush administration is "flailing ineffectually" over the issue of relative currency values, and China in particular holds to its weak yuan policy, what happens next?

What could happen is what often happens in countries confronted by major trade imbalances: a surge of protectionism. Tariffs slapped on Chinese imports? Ratification of the new trade treaty with the Central American countries (CAFTA)? The Economist points out in detail that Congress will favor the first and not the second the longer the current situation continues. For free traders, this is exactly backward.

Protectionist measures, like those being promoted by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), could put the United States in flagrant violation of its World Trade Organization obligations and undermine the effort to conclude a new worldwide agreement on further trade liberalization. Rejection of CAFTA -- as trade agreements go, fairly small potatoes --would signal the administration's inability to get Congressional approval for any deal it did negotiate. A slide away from rather than toward freer world trade could accelerate rapidly.

Former USTR Robert Zoellick made sure his agency was prepared to lobby for CAFTA ratification before he left to become Deputy Secretary of State, and his nominated replacement, Rob Portman, is a capable guy who should be able to lead a ratification fight effectively. But administration action to head off protectionist measures aimed at China would likely have to be led by Treasury Secretary John Snow. I don't want to be unfair to Snow -- Secretary of the Treasury was a prestige post in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, but ranks somewhere just above the Special Assistant to the President for Correspondence in this one -- but his performance to date in discussing economic issues publicly does not inspire much confidence.

President Bush's inspires even less. While he has been traveling around the country soaking up applause on his Social Security tour and encouraging a train wreck in the Senate over a few appeals court nominees, he hasn't said much about trade. Perhaps he's waiting for a crisis, like a major fight in Congress to stave off protectionist legislation or keep CAFTA from being rejected outright. It doesn't look as if he will have to wait long, and his administration isn't ready.

Posted by at April 21, 2005 05:12 PM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

A few questions... Why is a trade imbalance bad? And if protectionism is not the solution then what is the solution? Finally, if the weak dollar is causing this, wouldn't a strong dollar make it even worse as American made goods would be less attractive in terms of cost?

Glenn Reynolds has posted a WSJ snippet (subscriber only) about unrest amongst the investor class. Also, I've read in the Investor's Business Daily that Chinese manufacturers are quite unhappy with the current situation. The low dollar is putting a tremendous amount of strain on the entire way China is setup to function economically. Having the Yuan pegged lower than the dollar certainly means Chinese mass market goods will always be more attractive than American mass market goods, but in the process of meeting that demand; Chinese manufacturers must buy more equipment, machinery, oil, gas, diesel fuel, and other materials. Many of those purchases are imports, increasingly expensive imports, especially from their friends in Europe.

Posted by: The Indigent Blogger at April 22, 2005 12:19 AM | Permalink to this comment

Just so we're clear: the dollar is overvalued (strong) relative to the yuan and some other Asian currencies. It is weak relative to the euro.

The linked items you mention suggest the complexity of this situation. Export driven growth is part of the Chinese government's reason for keeping the yuan pegged to the dollar, but China is an enormous country that also imports a great deal -- it runs a trade deficit with the world as a whole minus the United States -- not all imports are related to its exporting industries, and consequently not all Chinese are happy with a weak-yuan policy.

Posted by: JEB at April 22, 2005 03:43 AM | Permalink to this comment

Agree on all points, especially the lack of preparedness of the Bush Admin to head these all-too-predictable trade grumbles off at the pass.

The Economist article you cite has a bit different take on the dynamics of bargaining on the Hill. They suggest:

"The betting is that, with enough presidential involvement and vote buying, Mr Bush may get CAFTA through in the next couple of months. Until he does, there will be little appetite in the White House to give the China-bashing in Congress the cold shoulder that it deserves."

I hope the Economist is wrong on the politics. CAFTA would be nice, but letting the China-bashing get a head of steam is really playing with fire. Especially at the same time they're already demonstrating pyromaniac tendencies with their pressure on China to revalue.

My read of Greenspan's remarks today on the prospects of a revaluation in the relatively near term is that at least he's trying to calm down Congressional impatience on China. But this should be much better stage managed with Treasury. Ah well, I can dream can't I?

Posted by: nadezhda at April 22, 2005 04:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

test

Posted by: greg at April 25, 2005 03:15 AM | Permalink to this comment

	Main \| Europe in Turmoil as the Dutch Vote No » April 21, 2005 Yuan Point of View, Part 2 If the Bush administration is "flailing ineffectually" over the issue of relative currency values, and China in particular holds to its weak yuan policy, what happens next? What could happen is what often happens in countries confronted by major trade imbalances: a surge of protectionism. Tariffs slapped on Chinese imports? Ratification of the new trade treaty with the Central American countries (CAFTA)? The Economist points out in detail that Congress will favor the first and not the second the longer the current situation continues. For free traders, this is exactly backward. Protectionist measures, like those being promoted by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), could put the United States in flagrant violation of its World Trade Organization obligations and undermine the effort to conclude a new worldwide agreement on further trade liberalization. Rejection of CAFTA -- as trade agreements go, fairly small potatoes --would signal the administration's inability to get Congressional approval for any deal it did negotiate. A slide away from rather than toward freer world trade could accelerate rapidly. Former USTR Robert Zoellick made sure his agency was prepared to lobby for CAFTA ratification before he left to become Deputy Secretary of State, and his nominated replacement, Rob Portman, is a capable guy who should be able to lead a ratification fight effectively. But administration action to head off protectionist measures aimed at China would likely have to be led by Treasury Secretary John Snow. I don't want to be unfair to Snow -- Secretary of the Treasury was a prestige post in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, but ranks somewhere just above the Special Assistant to the President for Correspondence in this one -- but his performance to date in discussing economic issues publicly does not inspire much confidence. President Bush's inspires even less. While he has been traveling around the country soaking up applause on his Social Security tour and encouraging a train wreck in the Senate over a few appeals court nominees, he hasn't said much about trade. Perhaps he's waiting for a crisis, like a major fight in Congress to stave off protectionist legislation or keep CAFTA from being rejected outright. It doesn't look as if he will have to wait long, and his administration isn't ready. Posted by at April 21, 2005 05:12 PM \| TrackBack (0) Comments A few questions... Why is a trade imbalance bad? And if protectionism is not the solution then what is the solution? Finally, if the weak dollar is causing this, wouldn't a strong dollar make it even worse as American made goods would be less attractive in terms of cost? Glenn Reynolds has posted a WSJ snippet (subscriber only) about unrest amongst the investor class. Also, I've read in the Investor's Business Daily that Chinese manufacturers are quite unhappy with the current situation. The low dollar is putting a tremendous amount of strain on the entire way China is setup to function economically. Having the Yuan pegged lower than the dollar certainly means Chinese mass market goods will always be more attractive than American mass market goods, but in the process of meeting that demand; Chinese manufacturers must buy more equipment, machinery, oil, gas, diesel fuel, and other materials. Many of those purchases are imports, increasingly expensive imports, especially from their friends in Europe. Posted by: The Indigent Blogger at April 22, 2005 12:19 AM \| Permalink to this comment Just so we're clear: the dollar is overvalued (strong) relative to the yuan and some other Asian currencies. It is weak relative to the euro. The linked items you mention suggest the complexity of this situation. Export driven growth is part of the Chinese government's reason for keeping the yuan pegged to the dollar, but China is an enormous country that also imports a great deal -- it runs a trade deficit with the world as a whole minus the United States -- not all imports are related to its exporting industries, and consequently not all Chinese are happy with a weak-yuan policy. Posted by: JEB at April 22, 2005 03:43 AM \| Permalink to this comment Agree on all points, especially the lack of preparedness of the Bush Admin to head these all-too-predictable trade grumbles off at the pass. The Economist article you cite has a bit different take on the dynamics of bargaining on the Hill. They suggest: "The betting is that, with enough presidential involvement and vote buying, Mr Bush may get CAFTA through in the next couple of months. Until he does, there will be little appetite in the White House to give the China-bashing in Congress the cold shoulder that it deserves." I hope the Economist is wrong on the politics. CAFTA would be nice, but letting the China-bashing get a head of steam is really playing with fire. Especially at the same time they're already demonstrating pyromaniac tendencies with their pressure on China to revalue. My read of Greenspan's remarks today on the prospects of a revaluation in the relatively near term is that at least he's trying to calm down Congressional impatience on China. But this should be much better stage managed with Treasury. Ah well, I can dream can't I? Posted by: nadezhda at April 22, 2005 04:30 AM \| Permalink to this comment test Posted by: greg at April 25, 2005 03:15 AM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan Recent Entries A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Archives March 2009 January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch