And From Berlin Down to Beijing, Can’t You Just Hear Those Factories Hum?

It’s curious how one and the same message is emanating from both Beijing and Berlin at the moment: “don’t blame us, it’s not our fault”. And it isn’t.

According to the Financial Times, the Chinese Authorities spent their morning responding to the mounting US criticism of their currency policy, arguing that their huge trade surplus is not the result of their undervalued exchange rate and warning the US not to “politicise” the issue.

“The trade imbalance is not something that the exchange rate can resolve and politicising exchange-rate issues is counterproductive to global efforts in tackling the financial crisis,” said Yao Jian, spokesman for the Chinese commerce ministry at a briefing.

The Chinese rebuttal came a day after the US Congress signed a letter calling on the Obama administration to label China as a currency manipulator, an indication of the rising pressure in the US to take a tougher line with China. “The impact of China’s currency manipulation on the US economy cannot be overstated. Maintaining its currency at a devalued exchange rate provides a subsidy to Chinese companies and unfairly disadvantages foreign competitors,” the letter said.

Curiously the Chinese statements also come just a day after similar reactions been heard in Germany – on this occasion following Christine Lagarde’s attempts to mediate in the growing conflict between Europe’s centre and its periphery about how to restore growth to the Eurogroup. Responding to suggestions that Germany should do something to reduce its trade surplus, Werner Schnappauf, general-secretary of the BDI trade association, said yesterday that Germany’s success at exporting was not the result of “some planned model”, but rather reflected “the competitiveness of German companies on global markets”.

As Eurointelligence point out, the German establishment feel threatened, and are closing ranks. This comment from Rainer Bruderle, the German economics minister, is very typical for the way Germans are reacting. According to Bruderle, the German surplus is not a problem for anybody, since it is simply a sign of success, and the foundation on which growth, employment and well-being are based.

In the words of Eurointelligence, “the whole interview shows that the minister, in line with every other German politician who is publically commenting on this issue, has no understanding of what imbalances in a monetary union imply”. It also reveals – they argue – a misunderstanding, “since what Germans consider as their success is primarily the result of real revaluations elsewhere in the eurozone, revaluations which make Germany’s good relatively cheaper. A first pre-requisite for the solution of any problem, let alone a problem as complex as imbalances, is the recognition that this is a problem in the first place.”

Of course, the fact that in the peripheral countries that very same “real revaluation” was primarily the result of having an interest rate policy over at the ECB more geared to the deflationary worries of a German society in the throes of a major restructuring than to the inflation needs of those who are now being criticised for having become totally uncompetitive only adds insult to injury (see chart below for the Spanish case).

Now it may seem platitudinous at the point, but I can’t help endorsing Gideon Rachman’s earlier plea that what we all need to do here is calm down a bit. We are talking at each other, not talking to each other. Correcting the large current account surpluse in both the Chinese and the German case is not as easy as some would make it out to be, since in part the issue is one of demographic imbalances which may need decades to correct, and there is no point in putting people who are already in difficulty even more on the defensive. At the same time, simply to talk about fiscal irresponsibility on Europe’s periphery (which again is a gross oversimplification of the issues involed) is only going to raise the temperature without producing any useful result. If the people on the periphery feel under threat then this will make it harder, and not easier, to get those much needed changes.

My feeling is that we have really all congratulated ourselves here far too soon. The OECD economies, by and large, have been stabilised. But there is no “V” shaped rebound. Prompt action by the central banks stopped a meltdown in the banking system, but they did this at the price of massively inflating sovereign debt. Now we need to find the road back to growth, and this is not going to be as easy as it first seemed. The old imblances don’t work anymore, and we need to learn something from why they don’t. We also need to leave behind us stereotypical discourses which were always of doubtful validity, and now seem downright dangerous. People have talked for years about the dangers of a return to protectionism, what we are currently hearing isn’t quite that, but it is damn near to being the next best thing.

This entry was posted in A Fistful Of Euros, Economics and demography, Economics: Country briefings, Economics: Currencies by Edward Hugh. Bookmark the permalink.

About Edward Hugh

Edward 'the bonobo is a Catalan economist of British extraction. After being born, brought-up and educated in the United Kingdom, Edward subsequently settled in Barcelona where he has now lived for over 15 years. As a consequence Edward considers himself to be "Catalan by adoption". He has also to some extent been "adopted by Catalonia", since throughout the current economic crisis he has been a constant voice on TV, radio and in the press arguing in favor of the need for some kind of internal devaluation if Spain wants to stay inside the Euro. By inclination he is a macro economist, but his obsession with trying to understand the economic impact of demographic changes has often taken him far from home, off and away from the more tranquil and placid pastures of the dismal science, into the bracken and thicket of demography, anthropology, biology, sociology and systems theory. All of which has lead him to ask himself whether Thomas Wolfe was not in fact right when he asserted that the fact of the matter is "you can never go home again".

7 thoughts on “And From Berlin Down to Beijing, Can’t You Just Hear Those Factories Hum?

  1. Schäuble is very bright and experienced and has access to top experts. And it is so important that it will get attention at the highest level.

    So it is unlikely that he doesn’t get the problem. If he refuses to state the issue in such terms, I am forced to conclude that he does so to put a limit on acceptable solutions.

    Germany just went to a though decade and depends on exports, not only to the EU but also overseas. That capacity won’t be given up.

    His last proposal seems to be at the core that Greece should renationalize its currency and Germany would accept that the current external debt would be repaid in Greek currency.

  2. I don’t understand why people pretend that now we don have protectionism. For instance, currency devaluation, which US is pursuing _is_ a form of protectionism.

  3. Can you elaborate more on how it is a demographic problem, as you mention in the 2nd last paragraph?

  4. We should remember that Brüderle is not a man of much account.

    Schäuble has a different stature though. I don’t remember what was his position back then on the adoption of the Euro in Germany. But perhaps he is just repeating the orthodoxy regarding the stability pact in Germany.

  5. Pingback: Cash Gifting For Dummies | Cash Gifting Reviews

  6. “But perhaps he is just repeating the orthodoxy regarding the stability pact in Germany.”

    That strikes me as very unlikely, as his proposal quite obviously would require a change of the treaties.

    “I don’t remember what was his position back then on the adoption of the Euro in Germany.”

    Does it matter? Would such a paper be released without the chancellor’s acknowledgement?

  7. Pingback: A qui la faute? « Borderline significant

Comments are closed.