Home > Plutonomy, unemployment > Economic Conflicts with China and Class War in the United States

Economic Conflicts with China and Class War in the United States

from Dean Baker

The Commerce Department’s release of trade figures last week showed another large deficit with China for October, albeit slightly lower than the record hit the previous month. This figure will renew the calls for stronger action against China.

Unfortunately the debate over China is often buried in confusion, leading to a situation that is not conducive to effective action. A major reason for this confusion is that there is not a common U.S. interest against China. The interests of the 99 percent differ greatly from the interests of the 1 percent. Until this fact is recognized more generally, there is no possibility that our economic relations with China will change in a way that benefits the vast majority of working people in the United States.

The central issue with China is the fact that the dollar is over-valued against the Chinese currency. This over-valuation is the result of the explicit Chinese policy of pegging its currency against the dollar.

The peg is often referred to as “manipulation,” but it doesn’t really fit the bill for two reasons. First, it is an official policy. China targets the value of its currency quite openly; it is not doing it in the middle of the night when no one is looking.

The second reason is that China’s mechanism for targeting the value of its currency is something that on alternate days our Treasury actually requests. They buy up U.S. government debt.

If this seems absurd, it should because it is. The way in which China keeps its currency down against the dollar (or keeps the dollar up against its currency) is by buying huge amounts of U.S. government bonds.

The media often tells us that we need China to buy our debt. This is not true. There are plenty of other potential investors, including the Federal Reserve Board. However we cannot both want China to buy U.S. government debt and then complain about China’s currency manipulation. This is how they “manipulate” their currency.

But the currency issue is only one of many complaints that routinely appear in the list of grievances against China. The longer list includes complaints that China doesn’t respect the patents and copyrights of companies like Pfizer and Disney, they don’t grant full access to financial giants like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, and they put up barriers to retail chains like Wal-Mart who want to open up stores across China. These sorts of items are often lumped together with the undervaluation of the Chinese yuan to make a sort of economic indictment against the Chinese government.

One can argue the merits of each of these issues, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the real world. There is no court where we are going to prosecute China for its economic wrongdoing. China is a huge powerful country. Its GDP is nearly 80 percent of U.S. GDP. By comparison, at its peak the GDP of the Soviet Union may have been half as large as the GDP of the United States.

We are not ever going to be in a situation to dictate to China what it can and cannot do. We are going to have to negotiate with them as the equal that they are. This means that in order to get some concessions from China’s government on issues that we care about we will have to give up on other issues.

From this standpoint, the interests of those yelling about China’s “pirating” of Pfizer and Disney’s intellectual property are 180 degrees at odds with those concerned about the undervaluation of the yuan. If China gives up some ground in agreeing to stronger enforcement of U.S. patents and copyrights, then it is going to give up less ground in agreeing to raise the value of its currency. Similarly, if China agrees to give Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs more access to its financial sector, it will be at the cost of progress on revaluing its currency.

The point is that in pushing various demands in its negotiations with China, the Obama administration will be favoring certain interests to the detriment of others. The bulk of the working population has a clear interest in having a lower valued dollar.

If the dollar falls by 20 percent relative to the yuan, this would have roughly the same impact as imposing a 20 percent tariff on importing Chinese goods and giving out a 20 percent subsidy on exports. Since the dollar is likely to fall against other currencies as well, this could go far toward bringing down the trade deficit, creating millions of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs.

By contrast, Pfizer and Disney will see higher profits if China increases enforcement of their patents and copyrights, but this will provide little benefit to workers in the United States. Similarly, Goldman Sach’s increased access to China’s financial markets is not going to create jobs for workers in the United States.

In short, there is a very clear class divide in U.S. negotiations with China. The 1 percent have their laundry list of special concerns that will make them even richer. The 99 percent care about a lower-valued currency to create millions of manufacturing jobs. We will see which side the Obama administration is on.

See article on original website

  1. Paul Davidson
    December 14, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Dean what you apparently fail to recognize is that any devaluation of the dollar against the yuan will improve trade balances with China only by reducing the real wage of American workers to the level of Chinese coolies.

    As early as 1933 Keynes warned that the law of comparative advantage was only applicable to climate related industries and natural resources– “but over an increasingly wide range of industrtial products….experience accumulates to prove that most mass production processes can be performed in most countries with equal efficiency”. Thus, entrepreneurs will look to the cheapest (in term of real wages plus transportstion costs to markets) geographic places to put factories. Accordingly for US workers to compete with chinese workers in mass production indistries thei US real wage must fall close to the chinese real wage (after adjusting for tranportation costs)

    Thus devaluation to the extent , ceteris paribus, it creates jobs in the USA does so only be cheapening the cost of labor to enterprise sufficiently. If, for example, we let china develop a factory in California and staff it with child labor, and other workers who earn less than the minimum wage, have no occupational or safety conditions in the workplace, and the factory can pollute the surrounding environment — US laws would prevent anyone from buying from such a factory. [Of course if we permitted American entrepreneurs to provide such a factories under the same conditions, they could easily compete with chinese factories!]

    But we believe it is uncivilized to have children under 14 working in factories, and treating our workers as not needing occupational safety conditions, etc. — so why should we permit US consumers to buy products from such factories just because they are situated in foreign lands?? Why not protect our workers by providing a civilized economic production system?????

    Devaluation is not the Keynesian solution to the problem. The solution to the international problem is to adopt an IMCU [International Monetary Clearing Union] as I spell out in my book THE KETYNES SOLUTION:TNE PATH TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC PROSPERITY] based on the principles of the “Keynes Plan” thst Keynes recommended at Bretton Woods. The advantage of my IMCU over Keynes’s plan is that Keynes requiired a supra national central bank — and the Euro disaster indicates that such a central bank in an atmosphere of independent geographical fiscal authorities can lead to a financial market disaster!

    MY IMCU solves all the problems Dean raises — and I have been advocating such a proposal since the early 1990s — but no one pays attention.

    Paul Davidson

  2. frank
    December 14, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    But US also has signficant trade deficits with both Wesrern Europe ans Japan, against which the US Dollar floates freely. It even has a trade deificirt with Britain, and no other. major economy runs a trade deficit with Britain.

    Maybe it isnt the current at all. The pegging of the RMB to the US$ can have no effect on these other bilateral imbalances. Maybe the US is just a relatively inefficient producer at the prevailing exchange rates.

    It could either devalue across the board and thereby lower living standards. Or it could increase its rate of investment fom the miseable level of 12% of GDP somewhere closer to, say, South Korean levels over 20%. (There is no hope that would raise its investment level to China’s 40% of GDP).

    Just a thought

  3. December 14, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    What if anyone who has taught economics as I have over 39 years, who speaks only English were given a test in “putonghua” or Mandarin Chinese, in the typical economics tuaght in the first week of an intro course? They would fail not because of lack of knowledge of even the basics, but only because a test had been imposed under conditions and constraints designed to produce “evidence” of lack of competence, lack of basic knowledge, perhaps even outright stupidity. What if the Government of the PRC of China, in 1949 at the time of Liberation, been recognized, under international law of nations since the “Peace” of Westphalia in the early 1600s, as the sole and legitimate government of a historically unified China (including Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, etc), with the same rights of other nations to sovereignty, independence, self-determination and freedom from interference in internal affairs) and if China had assumed its proper role and status in the UN Security Council at the time; where would the China and indeed the world be today? Where would China, and indeed the world be today if China had not been subject to repeated past and present imperial social systems engineering and encirclement campaigns, repeated covert operations of sabotage, mayhem, murder and overall terrorism by separatist forces armed, trained and deployed by imperial forces bent on strangling socialism anywhere and any time “in the cradle” and repeated threats of nuclear annihilation? Where would China and the world be if China had not been forced to divert massive and very scarce resources from development into defense against imperial destablization and regime/system change? Just as with the “test”, China and other socialist social formations since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, designed to “prove” not only the supposed “superiority” of capitalism, but also the supposed inherent “inefficiency”, barbarism, anti-democratic nature and inferiority of socialism and even socialist state-owned enterprises relative to privatized ones.

    Did anyone force the U.S. Government and citizens to borrow heavily from China? Did the Chinese somehow engineer a total systems and cultural change to create the obscene and destructive forms and levels of conspicuous consumption in America and elsewhere? Did China create the contradictions of capitalism and the types of crises (over-production, underconsumption, capital absorption crises, contradictions between the production and realization of surplus value, etc) that fueled some of the present debt levels and crises as well as borrowings from China?

  4. Podargus
    December 14, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    The trade and employment position of the US and a number of other Western nations is due to the slavish devotion to the ideologies of deregulation,privatization, free trade and globalization.

    Now the time has come to pay the piper but it is not the oligarchies who pay up front,it is the common man.The oligarchies will pay eventually but they are so blinded by stupidity and greed they can’t see that.

  5. December 15, 2011 at 3:27 am

    The US dollar is in a special category as a world currency standard: Everybody wants it.
    That’s why it tends to float up, in relation to other currencies, rather than down. It is the only true fiat currency, backed by military force.

  6. December 15, 2011 at 3:29 am

    When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, economics is all about collective psychology.

  7. December 26, 2011 at 5:33 am

    Well, Helge, anybody who disagrees with your last comment is asleep or delusional, but fiat currency is fiat currency.

    All fiat currencies are backed by trust, greed, and fear, which every Market Maker knows are the basics of any market, especially the markets for stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, and derivatives. Otherwise, why would soldiers or thugs take the Fed’s debt-dollars?

    For more on the basics see the posts & pages at The Greenbook blogsite:
    >> http://mm-greenbook.blogspot.com

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.