Shots Fired
Posted: November 4, 2010 Filed under: Global Financial Crisis | Tags: currency devaluation, quantitative easing, U.S. Economy, US China Trade 42 Comments
I figured I better start a series of posts on the frontiers of our third war. You probably won’t be thrilled to hear that the General in charge of the theater is none other than Timothy Geithner. The other general in the war is Ben Bernanke. Feeling any better year?
Well, ready or not, we may be in the very first strategic moves set out to wage a currency war and possibly a trade war. The two superpowers in the battle are China and the U.S. who seem to be in a fight to see whose currency can go the lowest. Paul Krugman has written about this quite abit. Naked Capitalism actually had a superb guest post on the topic today. The Economist front paged the entire topic in mid October.
I’ll quote from one of The Economist’s major articles here.
Behind all the smoke and fury, there are in fact three battles. The biggest one is over China’s unwillingness to allow the yuan to rise more quickly. American and European officials have sounded tougher about the “damaging dynamic” caused by China’s undervalued currency. Last month the House of Representatives passed a law allowing firms to seek tariff protection against countries with undervalued currencies, with a huge bipartisan majority. China’s “unfair” trade practices have become a hot topic in the mid-term elections.
A second flashpoint is the rich world’s monetary policy, particularly the prospect that central banks may soon restart printing money to buy government bonds. The dollar has fallen as financial markets expect the Federal Reserve to act fastest and most boldly. The euro has soared as officials at the European Central Bank show least enthusiasm for such a shift. In China’s eyes (and, sotto voce, those of many other emerging-market governments), quantitative easing creates a gross distortion in the world economy as investors rush elsewhere, especially into emerging economies, in search of higher yields.
A third area of contention comes from how the developing countries respond to these capital flows. Rather than let their exchange rates soar, many governments have intervened to buy foreign currency, or imposed taxes on foreign capital inflows. Brazil recently doubled a tax on foreign purchases of its domestic debt. This week Thailand announced a new 15% withholding tax for foreign investors in its bonds.
Currencies are actually my research area and I’m preparing for a series of papers and presentations on the ASEAN+3 area and the GCC area. China is one of the +3. The U.S. dollar is the peg for the GCC because of the influence of Saudi Arabia. Every one has a stake in this including the European Union. Anyway, let’s just say this is part of my thing and it’s a complex thing so I’m going to do a series of short posts on this to get every one more or less situated.
This is a quick introduction because I’m going to have to start with what’s happening tomorrow. This situation is likely to be on the meeting table for APEC Forum starting tomorrow in Japan. ( That’s the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperative.) Geithner’s trying to get the region to shrink their current account imbalances with the U.S. The current accounts are the accounting mechanisms for an open economy that deal with foreign trade. They are bookkeeping entities where trade payments from exports and imports for goods and services as well as a few other things like any incomes made by citizens who work or invest in other countries are tallied. The things that most international economists are interested in are the flows of imports and exports (the stuff and services) and the flows of capital (money, plant and equipment for businesses) between countries. Of course, all this exchange and investing happens with the currency of the country. It is the country’s medium of exchange.
As you know, the United States is the biggest customer in the world and we buy a lot of things from other countries. That means we need their currencies to transact business there. This also means the amount of their money floating around the world and the amount of our money floating around the world is important for trading or exchange of goods and services. It’s also important because if you don’t buy, you invest, and if you invest, your currency goes into a financial market and earns interest. If that doesn’t happen you sell the currency for another one at the going exchange rate. The market for currencies also influences the levels of interest rates in the world among a few other things. And, of course, the keepers of the currency–the Central Banks of a country are involved–hence our FED. So, Bernanke watches exchange rates, amount of money floating around and interest rates while Tim Geithner’s folks set up terms of trade between countries. Terms of trade can include free, open markets or things like tariffs, quotas, and capital controls. These things get set up in trade treaties and are usually negotiated frequently. All of this stuff determines whether a country will outsource your job some place else and will fund a business someplace else instead of your town. It also determines what you can buy at your favorite store.
Geithner aims to use a Nov. 5-6 meeting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum counterparts in Kyoto, Japan, to press his case for current-account deficit or surplus targets of less than 4 percent of gross domestic product. The proposal is also on the agenda for a Group of 20 summit in Seoul next week.
The U.S. has cited a glut of Asian savings for helping spark the credit crisis earlier this decade, while Asian officials now counter it’s the American central bank’s liquidity injections that are warping global capital flows. Geithner’s initiative is undermined by complexity in calibrating current accounts and a failure of similar efforts in the past.
“We have the outline routine of an impressive-looking agreement that literally changes nothing,” said Steven Englander, Citigroup’s head of Group of 10 currency strategy in New York. “Nevertheless in the short term investors are likely to be more impressed by the indications that U.S. and China are reconciled than by the underlying content of the reconciliation.”
Geithner’s plan was in part designed to broaden discussions beyond China’s exchange-rate policy, blamed by U.S. lawmakers and companies for keeping the yuan artificially low in a subsidy for local exporters. China may be open to the idea, a central bank adviser indicated last week.
And, what’s up with Brazil, the country that fired the opening salvo in this edition of Currency Wars? Well, according to that link at the FT, it seems that the word is not happy with Timothy Geithner.
Brazilian officials from the president down have slammed the Federal Reserve’s decision to depress US interest rates by buying billions of dollars of government bonds, warning that it could lead to retaliatory measures.
“It’s no use throwing dollars out of a helicopter,” Guido Mantega, the finance minister, said on Thursday. “The only result is to devalue the dollar to achieve greater competitiveness on international markets.”
At a joint press conference with president-elect Dilma Rousseff, outgoing president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said on Wednesday he would travel to the G20 summit in Seoul with Ms Rousseff, ready to take “all the necessary measures to not allow our currency to become overvalued” and to “fight for Brazil’s interests”. “They’ll have to face two of us this time!” he said.
Brazil and others are not happy with the Quantitative Easing 2 we talked about earlier today. This is because it’s an attempt to stimulate the economy and it will cause there to be more dollars floating around the world. Any one with a first semester class in economics should know that an increased supply means falling prices. The price of money is on one hand, interest rates and in the open economy, it is also the exchange rate. This means that U.S. goods will become cheap and every one else’s will look relatively more expensive. U.S. folks should import less and be able to sell more abroad as exports. If you’re trying to grow your economy on the back of the U.S. consumer’s appetite for stuff, that will now be more difficult.
Okay, so I’m reaching MABlue’s limit for me blathering on too long. The links I gave you are pretty wonky and long. I just wanted to bring up the topic and get you up to speed because this is THE NEXT big THING. I’m going to try to keep up with what’s going on with the meeting and let you know more about the topic.
If all else fails, you can consider this a way to your good night’s sleep.
Looking to the Future
Posted: November 4, 2010 Filed under: Elections 50 CommentsWith the ink barely dry on the analysis of the 2010 elections and some of the results still unknown, the pundit class is
already out with their prognostications for 2012. I’m not sure I want to see their future but it’s not always the wanting that makes one look.
Here’s one from The Hill called ‘You think -’10 was tough? Check out ’12.’ This little fact grabs one’s attention.
For the first time in two cycles, Democrats will have more seats up for grabs than the Republicans, and the party could see its shrunken majority erased altogether.
That’s just looking at the impact for the national level. Here’s some numbers from the state level at National Journal.
Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures — the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.
The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control — meaning both chambers — of 26 state legislatures.
That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.
I know we’ve discussed this before, but the question has to be re-asked. How did we get to the point where the GOP looks ascendant at a time when every one felt that Dubya/Cheney had destroyed the party for years to come? The NYT has suggested that it was part of a GOP comeback plan but I don’t see it that way. They had help from the establishment Democrats with their arrogance and insistent that we all just vote for them and they’d do what’s best for us.
The White House struggled to keep Democrats in line, with a misplaced confidence in the power of the coalition that propelled Mr. Obama into office. Republicans capitalized on backlash to the ambitious agenda Mr. Obama and his party pursued, which fueled unrestricted and often anonymous contributions to conservative groups, some advised by a nemesis Democrats thought they had shaken, Karl Rove. That money so strengthened the Republican assault across the country that an exasperated Democratic party strategist likened it to “nuclear Whac-a-Mole.”
Most of all, Republican leaders had the foresight to imagine the possibility of winning again. Even now, they believe they could have taken back the Senate if they had just managed to block at least two Tea Party candidates who proved unelectable.
I’m sorry. I don’t think people like the GOP or their message and if you check they polls, they still blame the economy and a lot of the problems on Dubya and his GOP cronies. This election was not FOR the Republicans. It was against the Democratic Party and you-know-who. We’ve had at least three “change and change now” mandates in a row. No one appears to be really listening in the District.
There were two observations I’d like to make. One is that the worst of the Tea Party candidates lost in all but a few states. The second is that a lot of the Dems that lost were the from the Blue Dawg side of the party. I’m still trying to think about what those two trends say when taken together. The other numbers trend was that the midwest went so red. Given the looming redistricting and the importance of state machinations to presidential campaigns, 2012 could be the Superbowl of modern elections.
Stay tuned and let us know what you think.
Thursday Reads
Posted: November 4, 2010 Filed under: morning reads 81 Comments
Good Morning!
I’m so glad to be able to surf the web again with my morning coffee!! It’s become such a ritual for me that living without it has been difficult. It’s just not easy doing it on that little tiny BlackBerry screen.
So, I thought I’d start with some economic threads today. Some economists are beginning to decipher the election and what it might mean for the economy. The first link is from Mark Thoma who writes on what the election might mean for financial reform. Will the Republicans try to repeal Dodd-Frank or block Basel 3? Both are important to bringing translucency to the financial markets. Basel 3 is specific to banking and is the international standard for capital and reporting requirements. Thoma takes some of the major new Regs one by one. That coverage alone is worth the read.
At least for the next two years, we should not expect any big changes. If there are changes, they will likely be incremental and move toward less rather than more strict regulation. In the longer run, i.e. beyond the next two years, if there is divided government then gridlock is likely to persist and there will be no big changes. If Democrats retake control, the tilt will be toward stricter regulation and enforcement, but I wouldn’t anticipate any major new regulatory initiatives. However, if Republicans take broad based control, we should expect an attempt to undue many of the more restrictive provisions of recent bills, regulations, and agreements as the free market approach they favor would be likely to prevail.
The Curious Capitalist at Time Magazine–Michael Schuman–thinks the election results will be bad for the world economy. All of us economist types seem to be using the G word. GRIDLOCK. This is his gridlock point. There are more, so be sure to check it out.
First, we’ve got the gridlock problem. A divided Washington probably means that not much will get done to aid the stalling U.S. recovery. Forget about a second stimulus. We’re more likely to see extra pressure on Obama to cut spending. And that’s not good for growth. Longer-term issues, such as financial reform, could just drift.
The FED continues with the next phase of Quantitative Easing. I’m not sure what all is included with its purchase requirements yet, but the basic idea is to get paper investments off the books of banks and give them money instead. They can’t just sit on cash because there’s no return. If they want profits they’ll need to invest or loan it to catch their arbitrage profits. Will they loan it out this time or where will it go? No one can ever tell for sure but the FED hopes it will be used for loans. Especially, in an economy like this. Here’s a FAQ on the QE from Real Time Economics at the WSJ. I promise I’ll write more on this as soon as my laptop looks normal again. That and I’m curious about the currency war possibilities. Look for it some time this week. Meanwhile, back to the QE FAQ and the big question.
Why is the Fed planning another round of QE?
Even though the Fed has been holding short-term interest rates near zero since December 2008, the economy remains weak. The Fed is falling short on its two primary mandates: unemployment, at 9.6%, is well above “maximum sustainable employment” and inflation is running below what the Fed considers to be “price stability,” an informal target of 1.75% to 2%. Fed officials believe more bond-buying could push rates even lower, though they admit the effect may not be as pronounced as it was before. “The impact of securities purchases may depend to some extent on the state of financial markets and the economy,” Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said in late August. “For example, such purchases seem likely to have their largest effects during periods of economic and financial stress, when markets are less liquid and term premiums are unusually high.”
[MABlue here] For those of you who are not very well versed in the world of finance, here’s is a good video from Market Place. The guy does a pretty good job in his grosso modo explanation of Quantitative Easing.
On the day after Republicans reclaimed control of Congress, a Democratic lawmaker said he will introduce a measure that would “disavow” the impeachment of former President Clinton.
Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.) said that the resolution is necessary so that Democrats and Republicans can work together in a bipartisan fashion.
“As we enter a period in which bipartisanship will be a major priority for the Congress, it is vital that we disavow the most highly partisan example of the politics of personal destruction in the recent history of this House,” Fattah said in a statement.
The last time they were in power, House Republicans impeached Clinton for allegedly perjuring himself over his supposed affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, only the second president in history to be impeached, was eventually acquitted at trial in the Senate.
Does any one else find this a little weird? And, let’s add another one the the weird pile from Ben Smith over at Politico. This one is on “HillBill”. Actually, it’s just a picture of SOS Clinton in New Guinea with some glib comment about how she’s in the right place at the right time. (sigh). Couldn’t he just say something nice about the trip?
The Guardian has an interesting piece up on Election Day Turnout. It is–as they say–a numbers game.
Here, as far as I can see, are the three big top-line differences:
1. The 2008 electorate was 74% white, plus 13% black and 9% Latino. The 2010 numbers were 78, 10 and 8. So it was a considerably whiter electorate.
2. In 2008, 18-to-29-year-olds made up 18% and those 65-plus made up 16%. Young people actually outvoted old people. This year, the young cohort was down to 11%, and the seniors were up to a whopping 23% of the electorate. That’s a 24-point flip.
3. The liberal-moderate-conservative numbers in 2008 were 22%, 44% and 34%. Those numbers for yesterday were 20%, 39% and 41%. A big conservative jump, but in all likelihood because liberals didn’t vote in big numbers.
So, I’m still trying to rediscover all my old links and haunts. I’m relying on you to help me for awhile. I crashed while I was spiffing up the place so I need to get on with that. Any suggestions?
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Back to Internetreality
Posted: November 3, 2010 Filed under: The Media SUCKS 52 CommentsI’ve been on the internet (well, a very primitive version of it where you dial directly to another computer) since
around 1981. I’ve owned a PC since then too. I’ve lost two hard drives during the entire time and both have been in the last 2 years when believe me, the last thing I need to do is lose a hard drive. You cannot possibly imagine what it’s like to lose you entire research agenda, literature, data, papers, and programs in one fell swoop and not be able to come near them for about five days except what little remains on your flash drive. Fortunately, I have Mozy, but now I’m finding the challenges of restoring that along with all the software updates and every thing else. I’ve got to completely get my computer to feel like home again. It feels like some stranger’s desk top. I’ve been at it since about 1:00 this afternoon and I’m no where close to it. I pray this never happens to any of you. Recovering all of this stuff is just taking me hours and I’m a nervous wreck.
So, any way, I’m trying to get back to surfing the web instead of switching between news channels to see what the deal is with the new reality. The most fun all day I’ve had was watching all the reporters running around the Congressional offices playing “Where’s Nancy”? ABC news evidently scored THE interview.
“Being the first woman speaker and breaking the marble ceiling is pretty important,” she told ABC News. “Now it’s time to move on.”
Pelosi said she had “no regrets” after losing her position as the most powerful woman in American politics and said the country’s unemployment problem was to blame for the Democrats’ loss.
“We believe we did the right thing, and we worked very hard in our campaigns to convey that to the American people,” she said. “Nine and a half percent unemployment is a very eclipsing event. If people don’t have a job, they’re not too interested in how you intend for them to have a job. They want to see results.”
Asked to assess her tenure, Pelosi quickly answered, “Job well done.”
You can watch Diane Sawyer’s interview at the link. I won’t post it here. I’ve got Bodhisattva vows to consider.
I admit to not watching the returns on MSNBC but The Daily Beast apparently was amused. Did you see this?
Matthews asked Bachmann if she was hypnotized. Olbermann feared the Tea Party would eat away at the Earth’s core. O’Donnell prepared for the Rand Paul end times. WATCH VIDEO of the liberal network’s most distraught moments on Election Night.
MABlue pointed over to Krugman’s blog in the last thread. Woah! The koolaid detox is official there! He was watching Obama’s presser too.
Urk. I just gave up on the presidential press conference. When Obama declared that Americans rejected Democrats in part because “We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done,” I checked out.
Nobody cares about this stuff — they care about results. Nobody really cares about earmarks; they’re just code for spending less (less on somebody else, of course, not me). Nobody cares about civility and bipartisanship, which in practice are code for Democrats giving in to Republican demands. Nobody cares about parliamentary maneuvers: we can argue about the role of health reform in the election, but I bet not one voter in 50 knows or cares that it was passed using reconciliation (as were the sacred Bush tax cuts we must, must retain).
Over at Think Progress, Yglesias thinks Obama Should Move to the White House.
Rather than plunge into the debate over whether Obama should “move to the center” or adopt tactics of high-intensity conflict with congressional Republicans let me suggest another tack. A day contains 24 hours. That’s true for you, for me, for John Boehner, and for Barack Obama. But Obama has more job responsibilities than Boehner, and both of them have more responsibilities than I do. So it’s important for the President to think about how he wants to spend his time.
Okay, who wants to be the first to take THAT one on?
I really was going to save this one for the morning reads, but if we’re discussing the day after stuff, we need something a little wacky to put everything into perspective. The UK Telegraph says that China is selling Obama sex dolls. That’s just about the perfect gift for the Obot on your holiday list. And I thought groping card board cut outs was foul. I can’t even reach low enough for words to describe using the image of the leader of the free world for that sort of thing.
I’m going to carry on until I feel at home!
So what was your weirdest day after moment today?
News Conference Mania
Posted: November 3, 2010 Filed under: Live 73 Comments
Agent Orange just held a gloatfest for the press. Mississippi governor Haley Barbour and Senator Mitch McConnell joined in. Next big presser will be a presidential one.
What can the one say now?
I just read Ian’s call for a leftie primary challenger with a few choice representative gripers speaking up. Many missed the point completely.
There has to be a clear voice out there to rescue the liberal identity. A real liberal and an authentic democratic voice is needed to ensure there is no public confusion between the Obama vanity agenda and what a true Democratic agenda would be.
Let’s assess this presser together. I’m hoping that the Democrats left standing will work to impress the base and offset any more presidential attempts to move to the right.





Recent Comments