Another bizarre mercantilist claim today is that the world monetary system operates on a supposed “USD-Renminbi” standard.
(From Tradingeconomics.com)
Such claim has been anchored on supposed “trade imbalances”, particularly US trade deficits, from where the world evolves only around only two nations, the United States and China. From such premise it is easy to dismiss this as false choice.
A further assumption is that central bankers of both nations have only been fixated on each other’s economy while ignoring the rest of world.
Nevertheless here a few charts to dispel such myths
Based on merchandise trade, it would be a mistake to assume that both these countries equally been trade oriented.
The fact is that the US despite the deficits, external trade in goods account for only a little over 20% of the economy. This makes the US essentially relatively a closed economy.
Meanwhile China’s merchandise trade is about half their economy. In contrast Germany’s external trade accounts for more than 70%.
Germany largest share among the three squares with the EU’s position as the largest trading bloc. (Wikipedia)
To further add, China accounts as the second largest trading partner to the United States. (US Bureau of Commerce)
Also in terms of trade deficit with the US, while it is true that China has the largest surplus, there are many other countries that maintains where the US has a deficit. (US Bureau of Commerce) Add all to the 9 largest trading partners with surpluses these will easily overshadow China. A further implication is that should protectionist measures be imposed on China, US deficits will only shift to these countries.
Yet for those blinded by deficits, they fail to also account that China’s exports have been (51%) owned by foreign owned companies based on China.
In reality, the obsession towards trade deficits are misleading for the simple reason that trade deficits are balanced out by capital account (Mark Perry)
To quote Professor Mark Perry (bold original)
As a direct consequence of our current account deficits, the U.S. economy has been the beneficiary of more than $8 trillion worth of capital inflows from foreigners since 1980. Because the Balance of Payment accounts are based on double-entry bookkeeping, the annual current account and capital account have to net to zero, so that any current account (trade) deficit (surplus) is offset one-to-one by a capital account surplus (deficit) and the balance of payments therefore always nets out to (equals) zero. And that's why it's called the "balance" of payments, because once we account for trade flows and capital flows, everything balances, and there are no deficits or surpluses on a net basis.
The other side of the coin is that China’s ownership of US debts has been overstated.
In reality, foreign ownership as a total of US treasuries account for only 25% (Wikipedia)…
…where China owns about 8% share of total foreign ownership as shown by the breakdown above.
In terms of international currency reserves…
The Euro-USD constitutes 90% of global foreign exchange reserves. Add the pound sterling, yen and the swiss franc such would account for 95% of foreign reserves. (Wikipedia) In other words, global trade and banking reserves have hardly been about the Chinese yuan yet. Although China has been making inroads with other emerging markets (e.g. ASEAN, Brazil India Russia, Chile and even Africa) to use her currency as an international reserve.
China’s fixed currency has partly been accused for such relationship. But China’s currency has been fixed since 1994. If fixing currency to the US dollar has been about stealing jobs…
…then all these countries have been guilty
But then again, currency fixing or pegging has been adapted by these countries mostly to promote stability.
According to Investopedia.com
The reasons to peg a currency are linked to stability. Especially in today's developing nations, a country may decide to peg its currency to create a stable atmosphere for foreign investment. With a peg, the investor will always know what his or her investment's value is, and therefore will not have to worry about daily fluctuations. A pegged currency can also help to lower inflation rates and generate demand, which results from greater confidence in the stability of the currency.
Other reasons have been for expanding trade network externalities and importing policy credibility, (University of California) aside from lack of depth in their respective domestic and sophistication in domestic financial markets.
Bottom line: As I have been pointing out, US trade balance, aside from the conditions of the US dollar has mostly been a function of domestic boom bust cycles, the Triffin dilemma (frictions arising from the collision of international and domestic interests based on short and long term objectives) and many other domestic interventionists policies.
There has not been a single factor. (Fallacy of a single cause)
Financialization of the US has been an outgrowth of these from which trade deficits have been funded through the growth of financial industry. Wikipedia points to the “greater role arising from the issuance of fiat currency untethered to gold or other commodities, as well as the “end of the post-World War Two Bretton Woods system of fixed international exchange rates and the dollar peg to gold in August 1971”.
Neither has supposed trade imbalances been deliberately caused by China.
Boom bust cycles, for instance, draw in lots of resources and labor to malinvested areas where during a booming phase distorts the price mechanism and distribution and production process via overvaluing wages, the domestic currency, asset prices, welfare (pensions), fake profits and etc....
Once a bust arrives these policies induced boom becomes key sources of retrenchment.
Mercantilists have been flagrantly blind to this.
Finally as I pointed out, Ben Bernanke has not been targeting the exchange rate for his latest QE. This means, if you believe his uprightness, then he acknowledges that the issue has been local, particularly putting a floor on asset prices and hardly about foreign (devaluation).
Seeing things from reality (than from political biases) gives us a better chance at being right in our investment positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment