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 (11)

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

	« Madain Mystery \| Main \| The Penny Drops » 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 (11) 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 "Best 9/11 Commentary" "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan "Awake" --New York Times "Must-read list" --Washington Times "Pompous Ass" --an anonymous blogospheric commenter Recent Entries UPDATE: Comments re-enabled. Thanks! The UBL Tape In-House Note Wanted: More Troops Questions Re: a Post-Sharon Israel Zbigniew Brzezinski Speaks The Former Secretaries Meet POTUS DeLay Steps Aside The Rancid Stench of L'affaire Abramoff The End of the Sharon Era? Search Search this site: Advanced Search 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 Washington Monthly New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion 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 U.S. Blogs Andrew Sullivan Instapundit Mickey Kaus Josh Marshall Oxblog Katrina vanden Heuvel Armavirumque Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Romenesko James Taranto Volokh Conspiracy &C (TNR) The Corner Laura Rozen Innocents Abroad Juan Cole Tom Maguire Matthew Yglesias Chequer-Board Spencer Ackerman Wonkette Brad DeLong The American Scene Eric Martin Mark Kleiman Winds of Change Jon Henke American Footprints Steve Clemons Jack Balkin Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Crooked Timber Austin Bay Becker-Posner James Wolcott UN Dispatch Matt Drudge Phil Carter Clive Davis Obsidian Wings Bainbridge America Abroad Red State Huffington Post The Plank Nikolas Gvosdev Times Watch Mitchell Report Columnists Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Maureen Dowd Fred Hiatt Jackson Diehl Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Robert Novak Mark Steyn Sebastian Mallaby Frank Rich John Tierney John Vinocur George Will Anne Applebaum The Reliable Source Washington Whispers Howard Kurtz Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance 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 The City Curbed Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice Western Europe Eursoc Fistful of Euros France Ceteris Paribus L'Ombre de l'Olivier United Kingdom Samizdata Germany Davids Medienkritik Italy 1972 JimMomo Ideazione Walking Class Netherlands Peaktalk Spain Barcepundit Iberian Notes Central and Eastern Europe CIS/FSU Registan Russia JRL Moscow Times Scraps of Moscow Siberian Light The Russian Dilettante Armenia Blogrel East Asia Howard French China Simon World Danwei China Matters Peking Duck ESWN Japan South Korea Marmot Middle East Egypt Baheyya Arabist Big Pharaoh Israel The Head Heeb Lebanon Across the Bay Lebanese Blogger Lebanese Abroad Lebanon Matters Lebop Bliss Street Journal American in Lebanon Beirut Spring For Lebanon Syria Amarji Josh Landis Syria Exposed B.D. In the Press The Sunday Times(UK)"If It Makes America Look Bad It Must Be True, Musn't It?" The Guardian "Trial and Error" Online Journalism Review "Feeling Misquoted? Weblogs Transcripts Let the Reader Decide" Online Journalism Review "Bloggers Rate the Most Influential Blogs" (see chart) The Sunday Times (UK) "Rise of the Virtual Soapbox" MORE" Archives January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Categories Area Studies Beltway Banter Books Department Cultural Missives Euro-American Relations In-House News Iraq Legal Matters Mailroom Media Monitoring Middle East--Iran Middle East-Peace Process Philosophy Presidential Politics Terrorism U.S. Foreign Policy Syndicate this site: Powered by

	© 2004 Belgravia Dispatch