Courtesy of Jack Crooks at Black Swan Trading
Monday 14 September 2009
www.blackswantrading.com
Key News
• A U.S. decision to impose special duties on Chinese tires could open the door to a host of trade complaints against Chinese products, creating tensions as Western nations seek Beijing's support at the G20 meeting. (Reuters)
• Euro zone industrial output fell in July and employment dropped again in the second quarter. (Reuters)
• U.K. banks are less than half way through posting 240 billion pounds ($398 billion) of losses on loans and securities, according to Moody’s Investors Service Ltd. (Bloomberg)
Quotable
“The conventional view is based on the notion that free trade is always a win-win proposition and that our trade with China fits the conditions of the traditional free-trade model. These include the assumptions that the markets are perfectly competitive, that exchange rates are not manipulated, that there are no economies of scale, that there is no cross-border investment or cross-border transfers of technology, and that there are no government subsidies or export requirements. If this were a true picture of our trade in tyres with China, then imposing tariffs would truly be harmfully protectionist and not be justified.
“But this is not even close to the reality of our trade with China, which far from embracing orthodox free trade has openly adopted a neo-mercantilist, export-led economic growth strategy. China keeps its renminbi undervalued against the dollar in order indirectly to subsidise its exports. Foreign direct investment in China is often induced by the use of special, targeted tax and financial incentives. Foreign companies investing in China are often required to export the bulk of their production as a condition of being allowed to enter the Chinese market. This is the case with Cooper Tires, which agreed to export 100 per cent of its production in return for being allowed to invest in a Chinese tyre factory. The tyre industry is characterised by enormous economies of scale and imperfectly competitive markets in which a few oligopolistic producers divide the market among themselves. It is Chinese industrial policies and not market forces that are currently determining the trade flows and the location of production and jobs to the detriment of the US tyre industry.
“Nor is the detriment only to the US industry. Orthodox unilateral free-traders argue that, even if the US tyre workers lose their jobs, the US economy will enjoy a net benefit from lower consumer prices. But this is true only if the shuttered US factories and laid-off workers quickly shift to some other equally productive and well-paid activity. If, as we know, they cannot, the entire economy will suffer a loss of productivity and wages.
Black Swan Capital’s Currency Currents is strictly an informational publication and does not provide personalized or
individualized investment or trading advice. Commodity futures and forex trading involves substantial risk of loss and may not be
suitable for you. The money you allocate to futures or forex trading should be money that you can afford to lose. Please carefully
read Black Swan’s full disclaimer, which is available at http://www.blackswantrading.com/disclaimer
“This kind of trade is not win-win. Rather it is a classic zero-sum game. It is well-known to game theorists that in such situations a tit-for-tat response is the optimal strategy. Unilateral acquiescence to the aggressive initiatives of another player (the orthodox unilateral free-trade response) is a sure way to lose.”
Clyde Prestowitz, Financial Times editorial 9/10/09
“The American press is Confucianizing itself. A key factor is that increasingly in the last twenty years, media professionals have been subjected to a litmus test on trade. Those who embrace laissez-faire ideology have seen their careers flourish. Those who don’t haven’t.”
“The litmus test is applied by various players with considerable power to influence a journalist’s career. Take, for instance, high-placed news sources in government, in business, in the think tanks, and on Wall Street. For top journalists, easy access to such sources have long been aggressively in Beijing’s camp. In the classic Confucian fashion know throughout East Asia, such sources seek to marginalize and indeed ostracize any reporter who tries to uphold the freedom of the press on China-related issues.”
“Even before reporters get the chance to talk to sources, they are already subjected to a litmus test by media proprietors…Proprietors who apply the litmus test include not only Ruper Murchoch’s News Corporation but General Electric (the ultimate owner of NBC) and Viacom. It is no coincidence that these companies have assiduously cultivated business links with China over the years.”
“…While not all corporate America’s socialization of media people is necessarily so Machiavellian, the fact is that literally trillions of dollar are at stake in the free-trade debate. The debate is of historic concern not only in China, and its corporate friends but also to all the Confucian nations—nations that, by no coincidence, have traditions going back millennia on the sort of politically motivated personnel management we have seen in the American in recent decades.”
Eamonn Fingleton, In the Jaws of the Dragon
FX Trading – Hats off to China—They have made their intentions clear.
It may at times be a cozy symbiotic relationship that has been beneficial for the US; especially as it relates to the US consumer getting increasingly higher quality and very inexpensive goods from China—that does increase domestic purchasing power. But, our relationship with China is not free trade in the “usual” sense. Based on empirical evidence, i.e. read real world not theory, if we continue down this road the US economy will be completely hallowed out of advanced manufacturing—which is important.
Granted the US has the lead in technology, but when US multi-nationals willy-nilly share that technology with key competitors, what’s the competitive advantage?
Black Swan Capital’s Currency Currents is strictly an informational publication and does not provide personalized or
individualized investment or trading advice. Commodity futures and forex trading involves substantial risk of loss and may not be
suitable for you. The money you allocate to futures or forex trading should be money that you can afford to lose. Please carefully
read Black Swan’s full disclaimer, which is available at http://www.blackswantrading.com/disclaimer
The most powerful interests in America will continue to try and convince us it is free trade and will invoke Adam Smith and David Ricardo blah, blah, blah…all in an effort to too keep the game going (there is likely a mix of true believers and those who know better but have the look of the Cat that swallowed the canary).
It won’t take much, except facing up to the most powerful entrenched interests in the world to at least convert the US-Chinese relationship into at least pseudo free trade; that should be the objective.
So, a full-court press of Obama trade policy bashing will likely be filling the airwaves. No Obama fans are we. No Union fans are we. But it is just plain stupid to continue to call our trade relationship with China free.
China has proven again and again to be many steps ahead of its Western counterparts. It is in their interest to do so—so their actions cannot be faulted in the game of great powers. Those going into China to manufacture know the rules (most of them), China has clearly established the ground rules both explicitly; and implicitly by actions. They make no secret of the fact they want to receive technology transfer as quid pro quo, requiring domestic production for access, instead of just shipping in goods, as happens in a trade relationship almost every place else on the planet. Chinese policymakers make no secret of the fact they want foreigners to establish a domestic partner so that said technology can be replicated by a Chinese domestic firm and sold into the Chinese domestic market. Western manufacturers volitionally accept this situation. A situation they don’t seem to accept anywhere else.
So we are not spinning China into the bad guy here. Hat’s off for playing the West like a violin.
That said, any disruption to the China-US trade relationship could rock markets big time. But, given the power behind the status quo, the tire dispute will likely fade from memory as just another Western anti-trade action. And so it goes.
Jack Crooks
Black Swan Capital LLC
www.blackswantrading.com
Showing posts with label trade war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade war. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Geithner, Obama and China
As a follow on to my comments on this topic here is an article written by David Kotok of Cumberland Advisors that is exquisitely to the point.
This is required reading for all.
By David Kotok
Following Treasury Secretary designee Tim Geithner's public confirmation hearing, an extensive Q & A occurred in writing. We have posted a copy of the US Senate Finance Committee's 100-page text on our website. See:http://www.cumber.com/special/geithnerquestions2009.pdf.
This is must reading for any serious investor, economist, strategist, analyst, or observer. In this text you will find what is on the minds of the Senators, and you will gain insight into the policies that will be forthcoming from the Obama administration.
One telling example is found in the following quote that has already created international consternation. Geithner twice answered questions about currency and China. In so doing he has placed the Obama administration squarely in the middle of the tension between the United States and the largest international buyer and holder of US debt: China. This happened as the same Obama administration is unveiling a package that will add to the TARP financing needs and the cyclical deficit financing needs and cause the United States to borrow about $2 trillion this year. Two trillion dollars of newly issued Treasury debt -- and this is how the question was answered. Not once but twice.
Geithner (on page 81 and again on page 95) answered: "President Obama -- backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists -- believes that China is manipulating its currency. President Obama has pledged as President to use aggressively all the diplomatic avenues open to him to seek change in China's currency practices.""Manipulation?" "Aggressively?" This is strong language. Geithner did not do this on his own authority. These are prepared answers. He is citing the new President, not once but twice.
China's response was fast and direct. China's commerce ministry said in Beijing that China "has never used so-called currency manipulation to gain benefits in its international trade. Directing unsubstantiated criticism at China on the exchange-rate issue will only help US protectionism and will not help towards a real solution to the issue."
Are we seeing the world's largest and third largest economies calling each other names in the middle of a global economic and financial meltdown?
The world is in recession. The economic growth rates in the major and mature economies are now negative numbers. In China the growth rate is at least 4 and maybe as much as 8 points below last year. All the governments of the world that are running deficits are enlarging them in order to finance stimulus packages. Their central banks are bringing the policy interest rates toward zero. Trillions will need to be borrowed by those governments. Either they will be financed by the outright massive printing of money through the central bank mechanism, or they will be financed by those in the world who have savings.
China is the largest single holder of financial savings in the world. Japan is next.
Why are we picking a fight with China?
The implied question is why are we alluding to one with Japan, whose currency is currently the strongest of the G4 majors? In a world where global finance is mostly in US dollars, British pounds, euros, and yen, this is engaging in a dangerous sport.
The pound has lost one third of its value against the dollar since the crisis began. It is destined to weaken more. The euro struggles because of the structural issue of having to conduct monetary policy in the sovereign debt of the various euro zone member countries. The gap between those sovereign interest rates has reached nearly 3% between the weakest and strongest. This is an extremely difficult task for the European Central Bank to manage.
And Japan is getting killed by the flight to the strong yen. Japan will intervene soon to weaken the yen; they have as much as said so. The yen is strengthening against the Chinese Yuan; that is Japan's largest trading partner. The yen is 1.5 standard deviations above the JPY/USD exchange rate. It is nearly 3 standard deviations above the JPY/EUR cross rate that has been established during the ten years the euro existed. And it is over 3 standard deviations above the JPY/GBP cross rate.
So that leaves the dollar likely to get stronger. Right now it is the default choice of the world. We have currency strength not because we are so desirable but because we are currently better than the others. All bad; we're not as bad as they are. Or all bad and the others are even worse.
So what do we do within 72 hours of launching the Obama administration that says it is seeking "change?" We fire the first public salvo in what could easily become a trade war or a threat to global financial integration.
What makes us so credible?
Is it our proven record of regulatory oversight of our financial markets, as demonstrated by the Madoff scandal and the SEC? Is it the way our rating agencies work so diligently to place a coveted "AAA" on paper that was peddled to the rest of the world and was found out to be highly toxic? Is it the way we honor the promises of federal agencies by having tier-one-eligible Fannie and Freddie preferred held in the US and abroad by institutions, and then essentially cause a structural default on that preferred (actually, dividend suspension)? Or is it the way the actions of Treasury and the Federal Reserve allowed a primary dealer (Lehman) to fail, thus triggering a global contagion?
C'mon? Where is the plan to restore confidence and credibility and transparency and consistent policy for the United States? And how does the Obama administration believe that launching a fight with China is beneficial?
In the 1930s the severe recession of 1929-1931 was turned into the depression of 1931-1933 because of protectionism. Every historian knows that. Every economist learns it in school. This is well-known by Geithner and even better-known by Larry Summers and Paul Volcker. They are the three members of the Obama economic troika.
The statement Geithner repeated twice was certainly known to them in advance. Why did they not temper it? What is the plan? Do they want to threaten and see if China backs down? This, too, is dangerous. Do they intend to pursue the Schumer tariff scheme? There are more questions than answers.
Lastly, Larry Summers was going to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He has cancelled. Why? Was it because he did not want to have to face the private conversations that would follow such statements as have been made by Geithner in the name of the President?
Watch Davos closely. And remember that the absence of statements is as revealing, if not more so, than the presence of them. Not one mention of trade openness appears in our reading of the 100 pages of answers to the Senate. Maybe someone else can find an affirmation of free and open trade. I cannot.
We fear protectionism. It starts with rhetoric. We now have that threat. If it is pursued, it ends badly for everyone. No one wins.
Geithner's answers are sobering. We are now in the realm of fiscal policy and national policy. This is not in the realm of the central bank; the Federal Reserve is not the player here. The Fed is doing all it can to unfreeze the financial system and restore it to functionality. If permitted to complete its task, that policy will work. If stymied or corrupted by conflicting policy in trade or federal finance, the recession will worsen and the pain will become more severe.
I couldnt agree more!! Corecap
This is required reading for all.
By David Kotok
Following Treasury Secretary designee Tim Geithner's public confirmation hearing, an extensive Q & A occurred in writing. We have posted a copy of the US Senate Finance Committee's 100-page text on our website. See:http://www.cumber.com/special/geithnerquestions2009.pdf.
This is must reading for any serious investor, economist, strategist, analyst, or observer. In this text you will find what is on the minds of the Senators, and you will gain insight into the policies that will be forthcoming from the Obama administration.
One telling example is found in the following quote that has already created international consternation. Geithner twice answered questions about currency and China. In so doing he has placed the Obama administration squarely in the middle of the tension between the United States and the largest international buyer and holder of US debt: China. This happened as the same Obama administration is unveiling a package that will add to the TARP financing needs and the cyclical deficit financing needs and cause the United States to borrow about $2 trillion this year. Two trillion dollars of newly issued Treasury debt -- and this is how the question was answered. Not once but twice.
Geithner (on page 81 and again on page 95) answered: "President Obama -- backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists -- believes that China is manipulating its currency. President Obama has pledged as President to use aggressively all the diplomatic avenues open to him to seek change in China's currency practices.""Manipulation?" "Aggressively?" This is strong language. Geithner did not do this on his own authority. These are prepared answers. He is citing the new President, not once but twice.
China's response was fast and direct. China's commerce ministry said in Beijing that China "has never used so-called currency manipulation to gain benefits in its international trade. Directing unsubstantiated criticism at China on the exchange-rate issue will only help US protectionism and will not help towards a real solution to the issue."
Are we seeing the world's largest and third largest economies calling each other names in the middle of a global economic and financial meltdown?
The world is in recession. The economic growth rates in the major and mature economies are now negative numbers. In China the growth rate is at least 4 and maybe as much as 8 points below last year. All the governments of the world that are running deficits are enlarging them in order to finance stimulus packages. Their central banks are bringing the policy interest rates toward zero. Trillions will need to be borrowed by those governments. Either they will be financed by the outright massive printing of money through the central bank mechanism, or they will be financed by those in the world who have savings.
China is the largest single holder of financial savings in the world. Japan is next.
Why are we picking a fight with China?
The implied question is why are we alluding to one with Japan, whose currency is currently the strongest of the G4 majors? In a world where global finance is mostly in US dollars, British pounds, euros, and yen, this is engaging in a dangerous sport.
The pound has lost one third of its value against the dollar since the crisis began. It is destined to weaken more. The euro struggles because of the structural issue of having to conduct monetary policy in the sovereign debt of the various euro zone member countries. The gap between those sovereign interest rates has reached nearly 3% between the weakest and strongest. This is an extremely difficult task for the European Central Bank to manage.
And Japan is getting killed by the flight to the strong yen. Japan will intervene soon to weaken the yen; they have as much as said so. The yen is strengthening against the Chinese Yuan; that is Japan's largest trading partner. The yen is 1.5 standard deviations above the JPY/USD exchange rate. It is nearly 3 standard deviations above the JPY/EUR cross rate that has been established during the ten years the euro existed. And it is over 3 standard deviations above the JPY/GBP cross rate.
So that leaves the dollar likely to get stronger. Right now it is the default choice of the world. We have currency strength not because we are so desirable but because we are currently better than the others. All bad; we're not as bad as they are. Or all bad and the others are even worse.
So what do we do within 72 hours of launching the Obama administration that says it is seeking "change?" We fire the first public salvo in what could easily become a trade war or a threat to global financial integration.
What makes us so credible?
Is it our proven record of regulatory oversight of our financial markets, as demonstrated by the Madoff scandal and the SEC? Is it the way our rating agencies work so diligently to place a coveted "AAA" on paper that was peddled to the rest of the world and was found out to be highly toxic? Is it the way we honor the promises of federal agencies by having tier-one-eligible Fannie and Freddie preferred held in the US and abroad by institutions, and then essentially cause a structural default on that preferred (actually, dividend suspension)? Or is it the way the actions of Treasury and the Federal Reserve allowed a primary dealer (Lehman) to fail, thus triggering a global contagion?
C'mon? Where is the plan to restore confidence and credibility and transparency and consistent policy for the United States? And how does the Obama administration believe that launching a fight with China is beneficial?
In the 1930s the severe recession of 1929-1931 was turned into the depression of 1931-1933 because of protectionism. Every historian knows that. Every economist learns it in school. This is well-known by Geithner and even better-known by Larry Summers and Paul Volcker. They are the three members of the Obama economic troika.
The statement Geithner repeated twice was certainly known to them in advance. Why did they not temper it? What is the plan? Do they want to threaten and see if China backs down? This, too, is dangerous. Do they intend to pursue the Schumer tariff scheme? There are more questions than answers.
Lastly, Larry Summers was going to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He has cancelled. Why? Was it because he did not want to have to face the private conversations that would follow such statements as have been made by Geithner in the name of the President?
Watch Davos closely. And remember that the absence of statements is as revealing, if not more so, than the presence of them. Not one mention of trade openness appears in our reading of the 100 pages of answers to the Senate. Maybe someone else can find an affirmation of free and open trade. I cannot.
We fear protectionism. It starts with rhetoric. We now have that threat. If it is pursued, it ends badly for everyone. No one wins.
Geithner's answers are sobering. We are now in the realm of fiscal policy and national policy. This is not in the realm of the central bank; the Federal Reserve is not the player here. The Fed is doing all it can to unfreeze the financial system and restore it to functionality. If permitted to complete its task, that policy will work. If stymied or corrupted by conflicting policy in trade or federal finance, the recession will worsen and the pain will become more severe.
I couldnt agree more!! Corecap
China, Obama, Geithner and IMF declare Trade War
Tim Geithner was confirmed as our U.S. Treasury Sec.
This is scary stuff !!
In his confirmation he said, not once, but twice, that "President Obama, backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists, believes that China is manipulating its currency. President Obama has pledged as President to use aggressively all the diplomatic avenues open to him to seek change in China's currency practices."
If in his confirmation, he's making statements like that, you can expect that Obama will push for legislature to put tariffs on Chinese goods... Protectionism... This is ALL GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!!!!!!! And believe me now and hear me later... he didn't just make up this response! This was given to him by Obama, and he made certain that everyone hear him, by repeating the answer!
Protectionism is to a currency, like kryptonite is to Superman... So... Not only is the Gov't on the path to spending even more than the previous administration spent, they look as though they will go down this protectionism path... Add to that, the recession and zero interest rates, and you've got the ingredients for a huge swat at the dollar... down she goes!
The IMF's Managing Director, Strauss-Kahn, was talking yesterday, and said, "I have said repeatedly that the renminbi is undervalued" He went on to add, "What we need is for the Chinese to change their policy and shift to more domestic-led growth than to focus on exports. Most Chinese officials are convinced that this is in their own interest."
So... The IMF believes the renminbi is undervalued, and that the Chinese should do something about it, and so does the Obama administration... And you say, "Trade wars"? I bet you can! And not a good time for them either! Not when the whole globe is suffering... Dolts, all of them, they can't see the Big Picture... !
This is scary stuff !!
In his confirmation he said, not once, but twice, that "President Obama, backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists, believes that China is manipulating its currency. President Obama has pledged as President to use aggressively all the diplomatic avenues open to him to seek change in China's currency practices."
If in his confirmation, he's making statements like that, you can expect that Obama will push for legislature to put tariffs on Chinese goods... Protectionism... This is ALL GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!!!!!!! And believe me now and hear me later... he didn't just make up this response! This was given to him by Obama, and he made certain that everyone hear him, by repeating the answer!
Protectionism is to a currency, like kryptonite is to Superman... So... Not only is the Gov't on the path to spending even more than the previous administration spent, they look as though they will go down this protectionism path... Add to that, the recession and zero interest rates, and you've got the ingredients for a huge swat at the dollar... down she goes!
The IMF's Managing Director, Strauss-Kahn, was talking yesterday, and said, "I have said repeatedly that the renminbi is undervalued" He went on to add, "What we need is for the Chinese to change their policy and shift to more domestic-led growth than to focus on exports. Most Chinese officials are convinced that this is in their own interest."
So... The IMF believes the renminbi is undervalued, and that the Chinese should do something about it, and so does the Obama administration... And you say, "Trade wars"? I bet you can! And not a good time for them either! Not when the whole globe is suffering... Dolts, all of them, they can't see the Big Picture... !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)