Some have taken note of Timothy Geithner's comments during his confirmation hearing suggesting that the Chinese are continuing to devalue the RMB to stimulate exports. The U.S. bond market tanked, supposedly fearing Chinese backlash in the form of a sell-off of U.S. Treasuries. Geithner also said that Obama will encourage China to engage in fiscal stimulus to try to boost lax Chinese domestic demand (psst: they're already doing it).
A few have freaked out, expecting a rising of tensions between the two nations that could culminate in a trade war, while one guy in England thinks that would be a good thing, as he expects the Great Salvific Trade War of 2009 as the best mechanism for producing needed structural adjustment.
But Salmon and Drezner both yawned; in the words of Drezner, Geithner merely "said out loud what everyone knows to be true." Salmon called Geithner's remarks "content-free". Still, it's important to notice the change in rhetoric, right?
Wrong. For one thing, this is nothing new from Obama: back in 2007, he cosponsored (with Hillary Clinton) Senate legislation to put tariffs on Chinese goods if they didn't allow the RMB to appreciate. For another, since mid-2006 Secretary Paulson has been harping on China's currency manipulations, most recently last month. The Chinese have shrugged off harsher statements than this for the past three years or more, and I don't see any reason to think that they won't do so now.
Now if Obama actually decides to actually slap tariffs on Chinese goods using the infamous 301 provision, then a few things could happen: China dumps Treasuries and the U.S. dollar sinks; China decides to further subsidize its export industry to offset the tariffs; or the WTO steps in and forces the U.S. to back down or accept tariffs on its own goods. None of these seem very likely to me, since China and America (nee Chimerica) still need each other to balance their supply-and-demand profiles. So put me in the "yawn" camp, until something actually changes.
IPE @ UNC
IPE@UNC is a group blog maintained by faculty and graduate students in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed on these pages are our own, and have nothing to do with UNC.
Bookshelf
Tags
Academia Adjustment Afghanistan Africa AIG America Argentina Austerity Bailout Banking Bargaining Basel Bernanke Bias Blogging Business cycle; recession; financial crisis Cap and Trade capital controls capital flows central banks; moral hazard Chavez China China Trade Climate Change Contentious Politics Cuba Currencies Currency Crises; financial crisis Current Account Data Debt Debt; China; United States; Decession Politics Decoupling Deflation democracy Democrats; Trade policy development Diplomacy Dollar; China; Currency Manipulation; Exchange Rates dollar; exchange rate policy ECB ECB; Fed; Monetary Policy Economic Growth Economics Egypt election EMU; monetary union Environment EU; Agriculture; Common Agricultural Policy Euro Europe; labor; immigration European Union Exchange Rates Farm Bill; Agriculture FDI Fed; Monetary Policy finance financial crisis financial crisis; subprime Fiscal Policy; monetary policy; elections Fiscal Stimulus Foreign Aid Foreign Policy France Free Trade Agreements G-20 G20 Summit Game Theory Germany global recession globalization Grand Theory Great Britain Greece health care reform Hegemony Human Rights Iceland imbalance IMF immigration Incentives income distribution income inequality; globalization India Inequality inflation institutions Interests international finance International Law International Monetary System International Relations Investment IPE Iran Iraq Ireland ISA Italy Japan labor markets Latin America Libya Macroeconomics Marxism Mexico Microfinance Miscellany monetary policy Monetary policy; Federal Reserve moral hazard Narcissism Networks Nobelist Smackdown North Korea Obama Oil PIGS Pirates Political Economy Political Methodology Political Science Political Survival Political Theory Power Protectionism Protests Public Choice Public opinion Rational Choice regulation Research Review Russia Sanctions Security Dilemma security threats Soccer Social Science Sovereign Debt Spain Sports Statistics stock markets Systems Tariffs TARP Taxes TBTF Technocracy technology terrorism Trade trade policy UNC Unemployment United States US-South Korea Venezuela WTO WTO; Doha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(521)
-
▼
January
(31)
- What A Difference a Decade Makes
- Payback Time
- Meta
- The Real Exchange Rate and the Current Account, 19...
- A Thousand Words
- Canard Pekinois
- Blogging Gets More Cachet
- Financial Crisis' First Casualty?
- Why Adjust?
- What Happens in Davos...
- A Person Needs a Face; A Tree Needs Bark
- Are Economists Completely Clueless?
- Manipulation
- Discounting Obama's 'Aggressive Attitude' Toward C...
- Best Wishes, President Obama, But Low Expectations
- More Sweatshop Blogging
- Deflation Watch
- Revenue Sharing in Iraq: When IPE Meets Security S...
- Sweatshops and Trade Agreements
- When Marx Isn't Really Marx
- Has the Financial Bailout Worked?
- Zimbabwe introduces new $50 billion note
- Foggy Thoughts on Decoupling
- Piracy Update!
- Buying Hearts and Minds
- Breaking: Entire U.S. Economy Ceases to Exist
- BOE sets a record!
- American debt don't taste too good anymore
- On the (De)Merits of Liberal Illiberalism
- Should We Hope For More Protectionism?
- The New Economic Order: Same As the Old Economic O...
-
▼
January
(31)
Friday, January 23, 2009
Discounting Obama's 'Aggressive Attitude' Toward China
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
LOL, Kindred. I too am yawning, but that's not stopping me from egging the belligerents on.
What you miss is that Paulson never used fighting words like "currency manipulation," preferring a more diplomatic call for "currency flexibility." For us followers of international economic diplomacy, there is a world of difference here in the terms of engagement even if they mean the same thing to everyone else.
The article on China spending more on health care was a good find.
President Bush took a parting shot at the French by raising the duty on Roquefort cheese from 100% to 300%. This was in retaliation for a French ban on American beef. The French are notorious for protecting their crummy agriculture industry. Many people think President Obama will reverse the decision. He loves the French and they love him back. A cheesy dispute with France
Post a Comment