Pressure China to Change

China’s President Hu Jintao will visit Washington DC next week (April 20) where he will meet with President Bush. For the last several years, China’s under-valued exchange rate has been imposing large costly distortions on the American economy. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has taken no action. Instead, it has allied itself with multi-national corporations who are profiting handsomely from the current U.S. – China economic relationship, which allows them to import cheap Chinese products on which they earn huge margins. If the President won’t take decisive action to get China to significantly revalue its exchange rate, Congress should. Here is an economic indictment against China that justifies such action.

The principal focus of attention has been the trade deficit with China. Over the past four years the China deficit has risen from $83 billion in 2001 to $202 billion in 2005, and it has been growing much faster than the deficit with the rest of the world. Moreover, China’s impact is widely believed to extend beyond this direct effect. This is because many East Asian countries hold down their exchange rates for fear of losing competitiveness relative to China, thereby raising their trade surpluses with the United States.

The trade deficit has had several damaging effects. The first has been the destruction of manufacturing jobs, with many companies closing U.S. plants because they cannot compete. Some companies have simply gone out of business, while others have re-located or sub-contracted production to China. Additionally, companies have re-directed new investment to China rather than building new modern capacity in the United States. This has structurally weakened the U.S. industrial base.

The trade deficit also helps explain why this economic recovery has been the weakest since World War II. Instead of creating jobs at home, consumer spending has leached out of the economy in the form of spending on imports. In the past, consumer spending would have created hundreds of thousands of domestic manufacturing jobs. This time round it has created them in China.

Washington’s free trade lobby has trumpeted how consumers have enjoyed low prices. This is true. The sting that they have omitted is that consumers are also now loaded with debt and we have not created the jobs and investments that generate future income to repay those debts. This spells economic trouble down the road.

Another distortion concerns financial markets. For much of last year Federal Reserve officials wondered why long-term U.S. interest rates were not rising despite the Fed raising short-term interest rates. The reason is that China (and other East Asian countries too) has been buying U.S. bonds with its trade surplus. These purchases have held interest rates down and kept China’s currency under-valued.

This distortion of financial markets has had serious consequences. First, in the past when the economy strengthened, long-term interest rates rose automatically and provided an automatic stabilizing mechanism. This time round that mechanism has been absent.

Second, China’s creation of artificially low interest rates has contributed to America’s house price inflation. By keeping interest rates down, China has artificially kept mortgage rates down and thereby contributed to a possible U.S. house price bubble. If there is a bubble, when it goes flat millions of households will find that they have over-paid for their homes and will be left holding large losses. These losses stand to be far larger than any conceivable consumer price savings from cheap Chinese products, and the debts incurred will also act as a drag on future economic activity and employment.

A third related impact from China’s distorting effect on financial markets concerns the pattern of investment. Lower interest rates are a positive factor for investment, bur China’s under-valued currency discourages investment in manufacturing. Consequently, the pattern of investment has been twisted, with under-investment in the traded goods sector (manufacturing) and possible over-investment in the non-traded sector (services and construction). This risks a repeat of the 1990s new economy where much investment in start-up firms turned out to be wasteful.

A final way in which China’s under-valued currency has impacted the U.S. economy is through China’s impact on Mexico. For the past several years the business press has been full of stories of manufacturing firms leaving Mexico and going to China where wages and labor standards are even lower and the exchange rate is under-valued. The closure of Mexican factories and the loss of Mexican manufacturing jobs have in turn increased illegal immigration into the United States. This has increased the labor supply, and contributed to additional downward wage pressures at the low skill end of the labor market.

In a global economy, economic dislocations within countries have ramifications far beyond the countries directly affected. China’s under-valued currency and unfair trading practices policies have been causing problems for the entire developing world by sucking jobs and foreign investment away from these countries. With regard to Mexico, these problems have imposed significant additional knock-on costs on the United States.

Free trade economists like to talk of China having a comparative advantage in manufacturing, and they use that talk to justify China’s trade surplus. This talk is bogus. The theory of comparative advantage assumes countries have overall balanced trade. The U.S. has a massive trade deficit. According to China’s own statistical agency, China has a massive global trade surplus and data for 2005 data shows it continues to increase. Additionally, there is robust evidence that China’s official statistics are under-stated. This speaks to the distorted pattern of China’s trade. China is not trading on the basis of comparative advantage, but on the basis of an artificially under-valued exchange rate and mercantilist commercial policies that subsidize exports and restrict imports.

In a market economy, distortions in one market spillover and cause distortions in other markets. The U.S. is a market economy, and China has distorted the pattern of international trade and U.S. financial markets. Exchange rates and interest rates are perhaps the two most important prices in the U.S. economy, and China has been distorting both. These distortions have generated huge costly misallocations of resources within the U.S. economy that will have lasting consequences, and China’s policies have also injured developing countries. Case closed!

4 Responses to “Pressure China to Change”

  1. Mitch Johnson says:

    Thank you Mr Palley for a great argument on the problem of ‘outsourcing.’ Americans need to pay particular attention to the harm caused by China’s unfair trade practices. Westerners need to realize that China is not conducting its trade in a vacuum – China’s economics policies are merely ‘politics by other means.’

    Americans are happy getting ‘great buys’ from large chains that manufacture cheap goods in China & import them to the US. Many get self-righteous when confronted with the harm such companies are causing; ‘I work hard, & Walmart helps me stretch my paycheck a lot further each week.’

    Such people dont stop to think WHY their paycheck keeps getting harder to stretch. They should be thinking about the fact that
    – their taxes go up as outsourcing erodes local, st, & federal tax bases (eg tax dollars that used to go to the Gary Indiana school district are now going to local party bosses in Shanghai)
    -Walmart benefits from tx abatemnts & development subsidies, which municipalities force middle & working class wage earners & property owners to fund
    -they & their children have fewer employment opportunities as more & more manufacturing & ancillary businesses close or move overseas
    -they & their children have fewer entrepreneurial opportunities, as more & more of the service economy is consolidated in the hands of a few, & the few small business that can survive are often those that serve large chains, & so have little autonomy
    -they find themselves w/o political representation, b/c they are politically disorganized & can’t compete w/ the large campaign contributions & social network of those that run large companies like Walmart

    As Lenin said around 1906, Chinese leaders say in 2006: ‘(Westerners) will sell us (in this case buy from us!!!!) the ropes we will hang them with!’

  2. Chris says:

    Preach it, brother! Once upon a time, they asked, “Who lost China?” Soon, they’ll be asking, “Who lost America…to China?”

  3. Ed Beaudoin says:

    Great article Tom I always learn a lot.Except how to keep my mouth shut.This whole discussion about trade assumes that there is an honest scientific argument supporting current policy and that protectionists are just out of touch with reality.The label itself puts people concerned with domestic economic stability in some sort of paranoid catagory.However the Chinese president showed us all what this game is all about when his first visit is to be held is not with G.W.Bush. but with Bill Gates and the Free Trader Club of the state of Washington.That should send us all a pretty clear message that the global business interests and free traders that operate without reguard to national intersets have reduced the President of the United States to a clerical position where he simply awaits their agenda and then signs it into law.Another interesting point in the news this week are changes in the way that the IMF and World Bank goes around telling the third world how to get thier people in line or be denied funding.Now it appears China is offering to not only finance these governments (possibly those hostlie to the U.S.) but also to provide them with military backing to secure the agenda should the IMF plan prove to be to much of a burden.If everyone hated the IMF for globalization and the effect its had on average people,what could the effect be now that Communist China wants to play this game?Lets say in Iran for example.

  4. John Bohn says:

    The analysis rings true but the hard part is the “decisive action.” The US has bound itself in the WTO agreements to strictly limit its options for retaliation against unfair trading practices. Section 301 is basically meaningless now. The principal method widely discussed for forcing China to take action — a special tariff on Chinese exports — would flagrantly violate the WTO agreements, which even Congress is unwilling to do. Unless somebody devises a form of pressure that we can at least claim to be WTO-consistent, neither Congress nor the administration will act and China knows this.