The Financial Times’s Martin Wolf zeroes in on one of the critical economic problems that led to the credit crisis (among other things), but hasn’t been touched since: China’s tampering with its currency, the renminbi.
Wolf presents the case for why China’s exchange-rate policies—keeping it artificially low, “to a degree unmatched in world economic history”— affect everyone.
Basically, China’s currency should be gaining strength as it increases in economic might. It hasn’t, though. Wolf points out that the renminbi is at roughly the same levels as it was in 1998, despite its economy’s explosive growth since then.
That’s because China manipulates its exchange rate to keep its currency weak. A weak currency is good for Chinese exporters and bad for those who want to sell it stuff, like, say, the U.S., with which China has a huge trade surplus and to whose currency it has pegged its own. If it floated its currency, it would soar against the dollar, making it more expensive to buy Chinese products and less expensive for the Chinese to buy ours. That would reduce our trade deficit with them and keep more jobs here.
But the impact goes beyond the basics. That’s because it’s built up huge surpluses, and that money’s got to go somewhere. It buys lots of U.S. debt and that helps keep our interest rates low. Too low, as we found out in the bubble.
Wolf quotes the governor of the Bank of Canada saying “large and unsustainable current account imbalances across major economic areas were integral to the build-up of vulnerabilities in many asset markets. In recent years, the international monetary system failed to promote timely and orderly economic adjustments.”
And Wolf himself warns:
What we are seeing, as Mr Carney points out, is a failure of adjustment to changes in global competitiveness that has unhappy precedents, notably during the 1920s and 1930s, with the rise of the US, and, again, during the 1960s and 1970s, with the rise of Europe and Japan.
Without a change of course, if “China’s current account surplus were to rise towards 10 per cent of GDP once again, the country’s surplus could be $800bn (€543bn, £491bn), in today’s dollars, by 2018. Who might absorb such sums? US households are broken on the wheel of debt, as are those of most of the other countries that ran large current account deficits.”
Wolf raises the specter of depression as a serious possibility for how this stalemate plays out. If China doesn’t float its currency and start spending money, transferring some economic growth to other countries who are crippled with debt, something’s going to give.
What Wolf doesn’t say is how the debtor countries like the U.S. might get China to cooperate. Tariffs spring to this not-a-free-trade-fundamentalist mind, but China has its own trump card in the gigantic amounts of U.S. debt it holds.
It’s unclear how this mess ends well, which means there’s lots of reporting to be done here.

After Paulson hit hard on this issue (with no result) the Obama admin seems to be letting it slide. Perhaps things could be happening behind closed doors?
China is in a bind. It's export industry is already devastated, and revaluing might destroy the rest of it. It doesn't want to reward speculators. And much of the rationale for a non-convertible currency was born during the 1997 Asian crisis, which China alone sailed through unscathed thanks to its fixed currency.
More than anything, China wants stability. The bureaucrat that recommends a revaluation would be betting his career and possibly his life on its outcome.
#1 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 10 Dec 2009 at 06:05 AM
Letting it slide? Geithner has pressed this issue hard, and Obama personally pushed Wen and Hu to address the exchange rate. Their problem is that they are reluctant to use any sort of trade club to force a decision through China decision by consensus system.
There is another view on China's self-proclaimed role in the Asian financial crisis. In fact, Indians and others believe, China provoked the crisis by its massive devaluation of the RMB in 1994. That left many in SE Asia unable to compete with Chinese producers, and it all cam tumbling down in 1997-8.
The Chinese obsession with "stability" is , as JLD says, at the heart of the political problem. However, if they hold on to the undervalued RMB, crash the dollar and choke off their export markets in teh US and elsewhere, they will have exactly what they want to avoid -- angry Chinese in the street protesting the failure of Chinese policy. They will try to blame that on the US, but Beijing will deserve most of the blame. They can be a short-sighted lot.
#2 Posted by China Watcher, CJR on Thu 10 Dec 2009 at 06:22 PM
I never bought into the "massive devaluation" theory. There really wasn't a 1994 devaluation at all, China just got rid of its dual-currency model and retired the FEC (Foreign Exchange Certificate). At the time, nobody was using FEC's for trade; it was just a way to rip off foreign tourists. However the "official" exchange rate was represented by the FEC so it looked like there was a big change. The RMB hardly budged.
There's a lot of petty economic rivalry between India and China. I think this is another case of Indian economists trying to make China look as bad as possible.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 10 Dec 2009 at 11:46 PM