Posted on 04/19/2006 12:56:38 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
One year ago, the chorus of the consensus told America that the dollar’s exchange rate was due to fall in 2005. Under relentless assault from cheap Chinese imports and facing a record trade deficit, the dollar had nowhere to go but down. The influential Economist magazine went so far as to say, “[t]he deficit is unsustainable: sooner or later it will need to shrink, and that will involve a cheaper dollar.” Politicians and pundits predicted economic trauma at the hands of outsourcing. Time has proven them wrong. What the U.S. needed then and needs now is to stick to the reliable keys to growth: low tax rates, deregulation, limited government, and especially free trade.
A Dollar – Deficit Link?
The U.S. economy did set two records last year. First, 2005 saw a new record trade gap. Imports to the U.S. exceeded exports by $724 billion, or 5.8 percent of GDP. Second, more Americans were employed than ever before in history, arguing against those who preached doom and gloom.
The data continue to support our contention of last May that the trade deficit is not the signal to watch: “This is all wrong... Many economists and the weight of history suggest that the trade deficit, a symptom of investment capital inflows, is a sign of national economic strength.”[1] Additionally, two papers published last spring pointed out the lack of a historical relationship between currency values and trade deficits.[2] Indeed, despite the widening trade gap, the dollar gained value against other currencies.
The January 5, 2006, Economist admits that the dollar pessimists “were all wrong.” Yet the conventional wisdom of “trade hawks” is again resurgent, arguing that trade deficits are unsustainable and the dollar cannot hold. Last week, the government reported the third deepest trade gap on record, with imports outweighing exports by $65.7 billion. Current exchange rates, however, appear normal compared with exchange rates over the last few decades.
Unless Congress moves from protectionist rhetoric to protectionist legislation, there is no reason to expect the dollar to slide significantly. Trade flows are the “tail of the dog,” as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke once explained. From time to time the dollar does fall when the world’s investors lose confidence in the superiority of America’s institutions and markets. Sadly, congressional hostility to the U.A.E. port deal was a bipartisan embarrassment and isn’t likely to reassure the world that America is as free and fair as it proclaims. Equally troubling is the Schumer-Graham proposal in the U.S. Senate to place trade barriers on imports from China.
The Chinese Invasion
According to the last week’s data from the Department of Commerce, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $13.8 billion in February. In 2005, the U.S. trade deficit with China grew by 25 percent to $202 billion. That amounts to nearly twice the $103 billion bilateral deficit in 2002. The ratio of imports to exports with China is now 5 to 1, perfect for the “Chinese invasion” storyline. The U.S.-China deficit’s growth probably won’t continue, but not because it can’t. Consider these points:
We should cheer the triumph of capitalism and its alleviation of poverty within China, as well as its benefits for American consumers and shareholders. The only point of debate is whether American workers’ wages are suffering due to trade with China, but there is no clear evidence of wages “racing to the bottom.” Instead, China is experiencing a severe labor shortage that is driving wages up rapidly in a “race to the top”—the level of free-market workers.
The real dangers to America are not free trade or China’s currency. That’s not to say there aren’t smart policies that should be taken to curb abuses of fair trade, rather that protectionism and currency haggling aren’t part of the smart mix. The real danger is that Congress will try to fix what is not broken and adopt a mercantilist policy of import limitation. Congress would do well to stick to the reliable keys to growth spelled out in The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom: strong property rights, low tax rates, low regulation, limited government, and especially free trade.
Tim Kane, Ph.D., is Director of, Marc Miles, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow in, and Anthony Kim is Research Associate in, the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] Tim Kane, “The Brutal Price of a Dollar,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1855, May 31, 2005, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/bg1855.cfm.
[2] See Ibid. and Tim Kane and Marc Miles, “Trade Deficits, Dollars, and China: Wrong Lessons Make Dangerous Policy,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 743, May 12, 2005, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm743.cfm.
[3] A.B. Bernard, J.B. Jensen, and P.K. Schott, "Importers, Exporters and Multinationals: A Portrait of the Firms in the U.S. that Trade Goods," NBER Working Paper No. 11404, June 2005.
I got it! They trade with one another so that at least one of the two parties make themselves worse off in the long run. Did that sum up your view on the matter? I can only try and guess as to what you really feel because you will not answer the question directly. I am trying to be fair here but it would really help if you could just answer so that I can read it from you without having to interpret the gobbly goop.
Todd, we should conduct our own study. We could research how many direct questions Ross has dodged and compare it to direct questions asked so we can get a percentage. We should start asking him some easy ones to get him back to around 50%, such as: "Are you an advocate for capitalism being the most superior economic system ever developed so far?"; "Do you enjoy freedom and believe that people, in general, should self-govern by electing representatives who will keep power at the most local appropriate level of government?"; "Do you believe in limited government?"; "Do you see national security issues (and black 'copters) in every issue?"; "Do you you know how to use the CTRL + (C or V) keys at the same time?"; "Are you basically a 'one trick pony' who looks for the dark cloud within all the silver linings?"; "Do you sometimes become so boring that the multivariate calculations within your despondent pet dog's head can only be recalculated once a pork-chop is is thrown into the equation?"
In order to lower the exchange rate of yuan China needs to print more money and to purchase dollars. So the Chinese cost of acquiring huge dollar reserve will equal the cost of printing new yuans.
Great. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? What's your point?
You tell me.
Domestic or imported? Were you going to add anything to the discussion or just tell us the obvious?
So is the UN in charge of our port security, or not? Now you are posting stuff that makes it look like the Coast Guard is in charge. LOL
Since you believe the converse is true...you have placed yourself in direct opposition to the views of Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, and the combined directorate of the Federal Reserve Board...not to mention the U.S. Treasury Chairman John Snow and the Commerce Secretary Guiterrez...
I guess we are all such a funny bunch of guys.
Who knew?!
You're the silly one. I never said that the "Chinese are more productive than Americans" as a matter of labor. However, Capital and production will head to the LCD lowest common denominator of cost. Labor productivity becomes irrelevant when it is 1/100th the price of U.S. labor. This "capital productivity" model which Wall Street is enamored of because of its quick-buck short-run mentality becomes controlling.
In 2000, the globalists at the forecasting firm DRI/MCGraw-Hill (now part of Global Insight) forecast that U.S. imports of goods and services in 2005 was going to be $1846 billion. They blew it by over a trillion! The actual number, $1997 billion, was more than 8% higher than they forecast. And the deficit was vastly larger than they forecast also.E.g., exports were a full 30% lower than these cretins forecast!Their "Free Trade" model is not being followed by the rest of the world or our so-called trade partners. When are the globalist apologists ever going to be held to account for their screw-ups and promises which never materialize.
So here's the real question. If productivity and output has gone up so much more than expected in the U.S., we'd expect the U.S. to be more competitive on global markets, not less. So why have measured exports fallen so far short of expectations?
There are five possible explanations for the exports shortfall:
1. Slow growth in our trading partners [not actually occuring].
2. China has become more productive even faster than we have. [ Possible but since they are in fact using our factories that is also not the case ]
3. Exports are undermeasured (the "dark matter" hypothesis). [I don't credence the dark matter thesis, in view of how we supposedly track everything]
4. Productivity and growth in the U.S. have been overmeasured (call this the "Deluded America" hypothesis). 5. A significant component of the U.S. "Trade Partners are now in fact practicing predatory mercantilism against the U.S. to pilfer it of its industrial foundations. (call this the "Sucker America" hypothesis).Clearly, the Deluded America Hypothesis together with the Sucker America Hypothesis fits the bill. And just which and what are you, Todd?
Now back to our regularly scheduled Program of "Todd ducking at all costs the facts when pointed out" as follows: What foreign investment? The purchasing of our debt?
Purchasing debt isn't investing?
Here you go again, Todd! Are you saying all "investment" is equal? Subsidizing...temporarily...our government's expansion, not the private sector, and in fact adding a burden onto it with the additional debt service is not a 'good investment.' The Chi-Comms are certainly not investing in our industry, hence their investment is not an investment in America's economic health. But rather, an investment in our own self-destructive economic mistakes. I.e., they are bankrolling our destruction.
Are you smoking some of hedgetrimmer's funny weed?
Sorry, I don't smoke...but if I did, I doubt that Hedgetrimmer's 'stuff' is nearly as strong as the junk you're on...which you are fuming away with non-stop.
You're lying again.
I'm a "Not Fooled by Paul's B.S. American"
Are you saying all "investment" is equal?
If China holds $260 billion in US Treasury debt, that's $260 billion more that Americans have to invest in creating new businesses or expanding old businesses. You understand the word fungible?
Subsidizing...temporarily...our government's expansion, not the private sector, and in fact adding a burden onto it with the additional debt service is not a 'good investment.'
You understand that China's purchase of American debt lowers interest rates on all American debt? Probably not.
If you know something I don't then I've got to know what it is.
Please correct me if I'm misquoting you. You're saying the trade deficit/capital surplus is too much, and we need to bring it down. You say you don't like tax-hikes. 
I may have a solution: I invest big time in China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. Their stock price is soaring, their PE is only 11, terrific earnings, Price sales ratio of just 0.61, low price/book too.
OK, sure it's a Chinese company, but if we're really serious about taking control of the Chinese economy and beating that horrible trade deficit, we may need to break a few eggs.
There's an upside --investing in Chinese oil instead of US oil is just one more way of getting even with those horrible CEO's at Exxon!
So Paul, you tell me: do I get even with the Chinese and show them just how it feels, or do I just roll over and take it like everyone else does?
So let's hear it--- do I give them Chinese a taste of their own medicine or not?
You're the one lying. Do you ever tell the truth? Obviously not.
Your burden of proof. Show that it dollar for dollar is invested in "new businesses or expanding old businesses." You can't. It is going into good old fashioned GOVERNMENT SQUANDRY.
I.e., Redistribution. Consumption. Waste.
You understand that China's purchase of American debt lowers interest rates on all American debt? Probably not.
Even were that point granted...it is meaningless...because the comparative advantage with their 'war of societies' trade position means that the vast majority of new manufacturing activity financed by those low interest rates gravitates to China anyways. They are the self-proclaimed, "Factory Floor of the World." To the extent the consumption in the economy is bolstered...it merely translates into inflationary housing bubbles and the like. Commodity prices (the best measure of real inflation) are going up and up. And we are having to increasingly bid against China as a competitor for our own resources. Energy is only one.
In other words, the Chi-Comms are really investing only in their own enablement. And its a "two-fer". Furthers disproportionately their increased industrialization. But just as importantly: It enables that increasing U.S. debt load that the Comptroller General is truly frightened of. It is abetting the long-term economic enfeeblement of the American government...and people.
And without buyers for the U.S. debt instruments, the Government couldn't spend it...unless they were openly inflating (which they do covertly anyways). The interest rate set on the T-Bills by the Feds is climbing steadily...likely at least 3 more increases planned...as is the total debt obligation owed by the U.S. to China (which apparently goes beyond T-Bills). Servicing that mushrooming debt represents a serious long term liability.
Upshot: We're exchanging economic positions. And with it... eventually military primacy. You did see where General Schoomaker lamented today the budgetary underspending on replacing our ever-depleting arsenal?
All which fits neatly into a Chi-Comm design of winning by persuading their enemy to surrender before going to war. A regime which you apologize for and schill for.
There is a name for that.
You don't like Exxon, put your money on a U.S. Competitor.
You did note this little factoid about CNOOC didn't you?
KEY EXECUTIVES...................................Age Position Pay Exercised
Mr. Tianpu Wang ,... 43 .... Pres ... N/A ... N/A
Mr. Ge Chen , ...... 44 .... Sec. ... N/A ... N/A
Mr. Xiyou Cai , .....44 .... Sr. VP ....N/A ... N/A
Houliang Dai , .......43 ... Deputy Chief Financial Officer and VP ......................... N/A N/A
Mr. Zhigang Wang , ... 49 Sr. VP N/A N/A
I assume the above-noted non-transparency doesn't bother you. Makes ENRON look like a paragon of virtue and bookkeeping integrity.
I like the ages too. Seasoned hands. Clearly they are not in fact in charge. Who pulls the strings? One need look no further than the CCP.
Not to mention that you would also be gambling on their not re-nationalizing at a moment of convenience or crisis.
If I were evil, like Todd, I would simply say: Go for it. Go for broke. Bet it all.
But being non-evil, and therefore, an enemy of Todd's Axis of Evil Overlords, I have to ask you...wouldn't you be better served...both personally...and as an American patriot... putting your money into U.S. energy extraction and R&D concerns?
A check of China's recently privatized airline industry shows the same lack of transparancy about their airline executives and investors.
Wait just a minute. Do you want a reduction in the trade deficit or not. Are you telling me that you don't know that when an American buys Chinese stock we get a reduction in our trade deficit? Please make up your mind, which is better --for us to buy and own more Chinese companies than they do of ours? Here I thought you loved the US but now you seem to be saying that you want the Chinese to own more of the US then we do of China? Do you actually want the US/Chinese trade deficit to continue to grow?
It's time to stop asking questions and just make a decision. Do I buy SNP or not? Yes or no?
Maybe it's quaint...but maybe you could do more to 'reduce the deficit' by putting your money into a U.S. concern which found and pumped more oil and natural gas than was previously available...lowering our U.S. imports. I.e., lowering our trade deficit DIRECTLY rather than with your highly speculative approach?
That's what I like about SNP. It may have its headquarters in Bejing but it's listed on the NYSE and subject to US law. How about that-- the Chinese may have taken over our ports but we've taken over their economy! Don't worry about the risk to my life savings-- I'm a tough guy and I can take it. Besides, I might make money and pay lots of cap/gains taxes to reduce the deficit, or I might loose money and that will further reduce the trade deficit!
Everyone complains but talk is cheap. Decide-- do you want me to invest in SNP and reduce the trade deficit or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.