``One cause for hope of an early agreement is that many of the illusions concerning the advantage of drifting currencies and competitive depreciation have been dissolving under the test of experience. Great increases in export trade have not followed depreciation; the usual result of anchorless currencies has been a shrinkage of both export and import trade. Again, the fallacy is beginning to be apparent of the idea that a currency allowed to drift would finally "seek its own natural level." It is becoming clear that the "natural" level of a currency is precisely what governmental policies in the long run tend to make it. There is no more a "natural value" for an irredeemable currency than there is for a promissory note of a person of uncertain intentions to pay an undisclosed sum at an unspecified date. Finally, it has been learned that competitive depreciation, unlike competitive armaments, is a game that no Government is too poor or too weak to play, and that it can lead to nothing but general demoralization.” Henry Hazlitt, From Bretton Woods To World Inflation
The Federal Reserve’s prospective Quantitative Easing 2.0 has now triggered an impassioned debate among international policymakers over the risks of currency wars.
Today, policy divergences among developed and emerging markets, which have been spurring capital flows that has boosted asset markets of emerging markets, has prompted for such worries.
Brazil’s minister Guido Mantega fired the first salvo[1] to accuse advanced economies of adapting “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies that could harm international trade.
Currency wars or competitive devaluation simply implies inflationism applied by governments in order to “boost jobs by bolstering exports”. This has been a long held mercantilist-protectionist approach, which had been debunked[2] by classical economist as Adam Smith, but seemingly being adapted by today’s leading authorities, perhaps out of desperation.
As the Wall Street Journal editorial writes[3],
``The growing danger today is currency protectionism—what students of the 1930s will remember as competitive devaluation or "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies. As economic historian Charles Kindleberger describes in his classic "The World in Depression," nations under domestic political pressure sought economic advantage by devaluing their national currency to improve their terms of trade.
``But that advantage came at the expense of everyone else. "As with exchange depreciation to raise domestic prices, the gain for one country was a loss for all," Kindleberger writes. "With tariff retaliation and competitive depreciation, mutual losses were certain."
Here is my take on the currency episode:
First, I don’t see the Federal Reserve as attempting to attain “export competitiveness” by taking on the currency devaluation path.
The Federal Reserve’s action, as well as the Bank of England, seems to be more directed at surviving the balance sheets of their respective banking systems which has been buoyed by earlier dosages of QE.
Therefore, as said above, dodgy assets that are still held by the banks would need further infusion of credit to maintain their subsidized price levels.
Second, it is political season in the US with mid-term elections coming this November. Hence, political talking points have been directed against free trade to signify attempts to shore up votes by appealing to nationalism and to economic illiterates, following the growing unpopularity with Obama administration and the Democratic Party.
This has been underscored by the recent passage of the China currency sanction bill[4] at the US House. Yet this bill isn’t certain to be passed by the Senate, which will most likely be after elections.
Third, while the currency bill has been seen as directed towards “forcing” China to revalue what most don’t know is that technicalities matters. As lawyer Scott Lincicome writes[5],
``But none of that changes the fact that, if it became law, this particular legislation probably won't have a big effect on things, at least in the near term.”
Why?
Because, according to Mr. Lincicome, ``The change in language... gives the administration 'a way to say no' to U.S. industries and could signal to China that Washington isn't looking to declare a trade war over currency practices."
In politics, it is usually a smoke and mirrors game.
Lastly, global policymakers appear to be cognizant of the dangers of applying protectionism and the nonsensical approach by mercantilist policies.
The IMF has cautioned against currency friction and has volunteered to act as a “referee”[6] to settle trade disputes emerging from such strains.
Importantly, emerging market authorities have been quite sensitive into maintaining open trade channels.
Poland’s central bank governor Marek Belka in an interview with Wall Street Journal[7] delivers a jarring statement against mercantilism.
From Mr. Belka, (bold emphasis mine)
``All those wars produce a lack of stability, and the warring parties forget the basic point. The bottom line is devaluations and appreciations change your competitive position temporarily but they don’t change your competitive position for good. If you want to strengthen your competitiveness by devaluing your currency, this is a sign of despair, this isn’t a policy. I am worried because this destabilizes the global economy and it does not lead to rebalancing, something we all long for.”
We just hope that global policymakers remain steadfast in support of freer trade than engage in inflationism which is no less than veiled protectionism.
Nonetheless, as far as the subtle competitive devaluation has been an ongoing concern, we should expect the local currency, the Philippine Peso to benefit from a far larger scale of interventionism from advanced economies as United Kingdom and Japan, whom like the US, has been engaged in “quantitative easing”.
Figure 5: Yahoo Finance: Philippine Peso Versus Quantitative Easing Economies (ex-US)
This means that the Peso is likely to appreciate against the British Pound and could likely reverse its long term decline against the Japanese Yen as Japan expands her battle against alleged deflation, which for me is no more than promoting the nation’s export sector at the expense of the rest.
Relatively speaking, the Peso is in a far better position than both of the above and most especially against the US dollar given the current conditions.
[1] BBC.co.uk Currency 'war' warning from Brazil's finance minister, September 28, 2010
[2] See Does Importation Drain The Wealth Of A Nation?, September 13, 2010
[3] Wall Street Journal, Beggar the World Monetary instability is a threat to the global recovery October 1, 2010.
[4] BBC.co.uk US House passes China currency sanctions bill, September 30, 2010
[5] Linicome Scott, House Passes Currency Legislation; Whoop-Dee-Freakin-Doo, September 29, 2010
[6] Marketwatch.com, IMF moves to referee currency debate, October 9, 2010
[7] Wall Street Journal, Poland’s Central Bank Governor Belka on Currency Wars, October 9, 2010
3 comments:
Assuming that a "currency war" is true, the result is temporary. Forced devaluation by a country's monetary policy body will encourage exports and in-bound tourism, but discourage imports, outbound tourism and people moving to work abroad. Which has some adverse effects on the economy.
A "currency war" is a spat among central planners in their respective central banks. A currency will naturally devalue because demand for the goods and services of a country that uses that currency is low and declining. There is little that central planners in central banks can do to perk up the currency even if it wants to.
The bottom line is devaluations and appreciations change your competitive position temporarily but they don’t change your competitive position for good. If you want to strengthen your competitiveness by devaluing your currency, this is a sign of despair, this isn’t a policy.
Currency wars 2010
Currency war is a result of protectionist policies that each country has to undertake in order to shore up its export sector. The Philippines' exports and OFW's remittances will be severely affected with peso appreciation, and hot money is starting to flow in the stock markets creating an asset bubble in the long run. Portfolio investors are free to run around to seek better returns. PSE is having their best time taking orders for stock purchases. This is only temporary. There are few blue chip stocks listed in PSE. The favorite are BRICS countries- Brazil, Russia, India,China and S. Korea.
Post a Comment