LyrArc Article Gist
The constructive contribution made by the G-20 meetings of leaders towards building agreement on economic and other policies for peace and progress in the global economy. The meetings were especially useful for coordinating policy and addressing issues arising in the global economy after the 2008 financial crisis. Here Li Baodong, China's vice minister for international organizations and conferences, international economic affairs, describes the path ahead: IMF reforms implementation, better coordination of macroeconomic policies, pursuing the anti-protectionist and free trade policies with further support to the WTO and ministerial MC9 meeting in Bali in Dec. 2013, and infrastructure financing proposals for developing countries on the agenda at the St Petersburg, Russia, G-2- meeting in Sept. 2013. Baodong says the mechanism called the Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth as part of the G-20 meetings is a major achievement. Each G-20 economy submits it macroeconomic policy plan for a Mutual Assessment Process under this arrangement. The progress from the Bretton Woods financial architecture to the new arrangement- from the G-6 to the G-20 to include developing countries from India to Mexico and Brazil- is another major achievement, not fully recognized by the public, says Baodong. Interestingly Baodong makes particular mention to global rebalancing, rather than pushing what he calls the impossible task of increasing demand to get growth. This is a realization coming to China's economic policymakers under the new Jinping-Keqiang administration after the overly aggressive effort to stimulate demand in the 2009-2011 Stimulus, and the ensuing financial problems in the banking and credit system. It is indicative of the policy shift and its implementation underway in China in 2013-2015....

LyrArc Article Gist
Nouriel Roubini has proven correct on global financial issues. He said in an interview on the sidelines of a symposium in Malaysia, that China needs to revalue its currency for its own sake. China will see a growth collapse in the next 2-3 years if it fails to do so. His point is that China can still maintain growth by shifting to domestic consumption and less infrastructure spending and exports. In his view growth should not be affected if China exports less and consumes more. He points to the decrease in consumption as a share of GDP from 45% to 36% in the last ten years- this ratio is 70% in the USA. A cheap yuan keeps foreign goods unaffordable and protects state owned companies which also get cheap credit, as keeping the yuan low requires China to keep interest rates artificially low. What this does is make a massive transfer of income from the household sector to the state owned companies, just at the time when China needs to do the very opposite of this. And compounding the problem is that the 25% of China's GDP that is made up of retained earnings of mostly state owned companies, goes into real estate and production facilities. See the link to David Barboza in the New York Times who points to the wasteful spending and real estate speculation by state owned companies. Roubini cites the automobile sector where capacity has doubled in the last year to 20 million, when the domestic market increased by 50% to 10 million vehicles. The stimulus only increased the effect of surplus capacity and misallocation of investment, with highways to nowhere and brand new airports that are three quarters empty. The Chinese leadership is beginning to grasp this, but the state owned companies and other interests who benefit fromm the old model, may make it difficult to reverse the trends. A lot is at stake in this, as it affects the U.S., as well as countries dependent on China's imports such as Australia, Canada, Brazil and Germany. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Two US carrier strike groups and 17 naval ships prepare for joint exercizes with Japan's Self-Defense Forces off Okinawa in the first week of October 2021. In late September a British aircraft carrier group goes through the Taiwan Straits. China has flown aircraft near Taiwan's airspace before. On October 1-5 over a period of 4 days China sends 150 fighter, bombers and other aircraft near Taiwanese airspace. This situation is reminiscent of the situation in 1950-53 during the period of the Korean War when US president Harry Truman sent the Seventh Fleet to the Straits of Taiwan. In 1954 Chinese artillery started the shelling of offshore islands Quemoy and Matsu. This happened again in 1958 under president Eisenhower. At that point the US sent a naval contingent to the Taiwan Straits. The crisis was resolved through talks with China. Eisenhower then setup a joint defense agreement with Taiwan.  Here the Taiwan Defense Minister says China is capable of an invasion of Taiwan in 2021 but "it has to calculate what it would cost and what kind of outcome it would achieve." He also says that after 2025 "it would have lowered the costs and losses to a minimum." As US companies seek expansion in China the situation is changing rapidly in 2021 in the other areas.The US under president Biden sees the wars under previous presidents and the economic policies of not investing in American industrial strength have created risks for America in its role in the world. Biden seeks to restore American industrial strength through massive investments. It has been reported that Taiwan even considers the concentration of world semiconductor industry in Taiwan a way to assure the US dependence on Taiwan for semiconductors would lead to allied economic commitment to Taiwan in addition to defense commitments already given. In a sign of awareness of the distorted situation in semiconductor manufacturing that American companies such as Intel have allowed to happen, including ceding essential technologies in manufacturing semiconductors to other nations, the Biden administration has pushed to reverse these policies giving $52 billion in state aid. President Biden talked to president Xi of China in early September in a 90 minute call. This was aimed at easing hostility between the two countries. During that call the two leaders had agreed to abide by the Taiwan Relations Act, that states Taiwan's status should be resolved through peaceful means. It was passed in the US Congress in 1979 during the period when the US restored diplomatic relations with China. The situation today resembles that in the period after the Korean War into the late 1950's when China under Mao continued shelling of islands under Taiwan from the mainland. This makes the existing supply chains that make the US, Europe and India overly dependent on China,Taiwan, Singapore, for manufactured goods look antiquated and out of place. American companies such as Apple, GM, Black Rock and American financial companies are caught in a bind as they operate as if nothing is happening, when a lot has changed during the coronavirus pandemic. The Biden administration is pursuing its own long term policy for restructuring the supply chain for American industry. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The home ownership rate for the U.S. in March 2012, is 65.4%, the same rate as in 1997 before the housing bubble, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The irony of this is that the housing bubble was inflated by politicians in Congress and mortgage lenders and purchasers of mortgage securities. Fannie Mae and Countryside worked together ostensibly to promote home ownership while pursuing profits. In the case of politicians they pursued goals of raising employment and growth without understanding the risks of artificially inflating home ownership, and without consideration for incomes of subprime borrowers. A less benign view of the interests and goals of politicians comes from reflections on the impact of political lobbying by Fannie Mae and other housing lenders in the U.S. Congress. The consequences in terms of foreclosures have been devastating for minorities as well as other middle class homeowners. It has also damaged the U.S. banking system, credit growth in the economy and prospects for recovery, which will take years to correct. The federal government is also saddled with large losses at Fannie Mae because of its quasi government agency role. That role led to inflation of the bubble. Most of the consequences will be borne by middle and lower income households in the U.S. The pass-through effects in a global economy affect Europe, and emerging market countries. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...