|
SwiftVets.com Service to Country
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
SBD Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 1022
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 7:12 pm Post subject: China Holds Key to U.S. Economy |
|
|
China Holds Key to U.S. Economy
By John F. Sheehan
Americans should not underestimate the enormous leverage they have on the global economy in general and on China in particular. But they should not underestimate America’s vulnerability to a crash from this relationship, either. America has become so dependent on Chinese and global lending to finance its imports from China that the resulting distortions to the international financial markets are becoming unmanageable. Whatever you hear about the health of the American economy, America is living in a fool’s paradise, because it is all on borrowed money. Indeed, the whole real estate asset bubble (which has also financed consumer demand) has been financed by Chinese and other Asian purchases of Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac paper, which keeps the American real estate market liquid and is bigger than the market for U.S. Treasury securities. China and other Asians own more than half of all this paper, meaning they control the liquidity of the American real estate and consumer credit market as much as the Federal Reserve Bank. By financing our purchases of Chinese manufactured goods, the Chinese have been turning America into an economic colony of China. This is bankrupting our national finances, destroying our currency and hollowing out our industry. Indeed we are engaged in a self-destructive co-dependency with China that is unsustainable and has turned globalization into a Chinese-American affair. Most of third-world development foreign direct investment has been diverted to China, and most all of China’s manufactured exports go to America.
All of these exports are financed by loans made to Americans from Chinese and other Asian central banks. This co-dependency will collapse because the global economy has become over-dependent on the credit and trading relationship between two countries — and the nature of that relationship is not friendly, but predatory, threatening to destroy America’s economic position. The statistical weight of this relationship on global trade and capital flows is awesome. Since 1995, 60% of the world’s cumulative output demand has come from America, which is twice America’s share of global GDP (demand).
American spending has been up 3.5% per year since 1995, which is twice the increase of the rest of G-7 countries combined. And about 75% of China’s economy is dedicated to foreign trade; 64% of the entire Pacific Rim’s is (up from 55% in the early 1990s), and pretty
much all of East Asia’s “intra-Asian trade” is dedicated to supplying manufacturers that export to the U.S. market. That means Asia’s development is certainly not selfsustaining and without American imports, intra-Asian trade will certainly collapse. This is especially true for China, which only has a current-account surplus with the United States while it is probably in deficit with the rest of the world. As China must import both capital goods and raw materials for what it manufactures for America, its dependence on other countries for its so-called inevitable rise is total. Moreover, Asia’s overcapacity is so massive, so overdependent on American demand and so geared to American prices that Asia could not absorb its own production even if it wanted to. The inevitability of the rise of Asia and China, therefore, is a myth. It is a phenomenon dependent on American indulgence. By withholding trade and investment, it can be stopped …
… Like other Asian countries before it, China’s capitalintensive manufacturing export strategy is hitting a line of diminishing returns. China’s advantage is that unlike most other Asian countries, it has an unlimited supply of cheap labor. Like other Asian countries, however, it is still overdependent on America as its market
…… The only thing that keeps Chinese banks from collapsing from bad loans is the amazing Chinese penchant for thrift — citizens often save over 50% of their incomes. This deposit growth averages about 30% every six months, allowing domestic credit to grow at a similar rate. The Chinese people’s perception of their banks’ solvency is highly dependent on the implied and inferred guarantee of deposits by the People’s Bank of China (PboC), which has accumulated $500 billion in foreign currency reserves
…… Every time the solvency of Chinese banks looks shaky, the PBoC injects hard currency into its big four state banks and entices American investors into buying minority stakes in them and in other smaller Chinese institutions.
Either way, China’s banking system is dependent on foreign hard currency — the American dollar in particular —because America is China’s biggest customer. Without these “forex” reserves, China’s banking structure collapses into the nightmares of bank runs, disappearing capital and a choice between hyper-inflation and hyper-deflation
…… For the last fifteen years, at least 85 cents of every new dollar saved by every person on Earth, from Antarctica to Canada to China to India, has gone into U.S. dollar denominated instruments.
This is what has been financing America’s great consumer credit machine, our asset bubbles and our federal deficits. And each year, as we devalue our currency (and consequently the value of foreign investments in U.S. paper), we default on these debts by the exact percentage of the dollar’s decline
…… Until now, Asian central banks have been willing to go along with this, because their purchases of American government securities kept American consumer demand for Asian (and particularly Chinese) products strong —meaning Asian investments in American paper had nothing at all to do with “America being a great investment.” Rather, America has been a great customer — on credit
…… Asians rationalized that they could take the loss if it helped them accumulate a critical mass of industrial power that might become self-sustaining. This has not yet happened, but it indicates that their loans to America had a predatory motive — not one of confidence in the American economy. It was an act of plundering and using debt to keep it going, that’s all
…… Chinese central bankers understand that the world economy will crash if this process of lending America money to buy Chinese products is interrupted, because 60% of the world’s ‘growth’ is financed by Chinese exports to America and Chinese loans to finance these exports. But it also means that this stability is predicated on a gradual transfer of America’s real wealth to China. This means that the end point of this 'stable' transfusion is economic death for the United States. Is this ‘stability’ worth it?
— John F. Sheehan is a bank economist who lives and works in Boston, Massachusetts. He specializes in international issues, especially international economic strategy.
SBD
note: Please provide a link to source. Thanks. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GenrXr Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 1720 Location: Houston
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
He misses the mark on 2 very major points.
First, the worlds economy is based on the American economy. If the US is hurt then the rest of the world will be hurt as a result.
Second, capitalistic markets only work when they are governed by moral ethics and China will fail miserably here. America recently went through a recession because we had a President in office who's political party declared all that mattered was performance and not character. When this happens great companies go broke as witnessed by Arthur Andersons bankruptcy.
China will soon meet the same fate. Their immoral nature will destroy their commerce. Same thing happened to Japan in the 80's.
Damn wish people would follow history. _________________ "An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SBD Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 1022
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
GenrXr wrote: | He misses the mark on 2 very major points.
First, the worlds economy is based on the American economy. If the US is hurt then the rest of the world will be hurt as a result.
Second, capitalistic markets only work when they are governed by moral ethics and China will fail miserably here. America recently went through a recession because we had a President in office who's political party declared all that mattered was performance and not character. When this happens great companies go broke as witnessed by Arthur Andersons bankruptcy.
China will soon meet the same fate. Their immoral nature will destroy their commerce. Same thing happened to Japan in the 80's.
Damn wish people would follow history. |
Did you just read the same article I did?? The entire article is based on the fact that the world's economy is dependant on America.
All of these exports are financed by loans made to Americans from Chinese and other Asian central banks. This co-dependency will collapse because the global economy has become over-dependent on the credit and trading relationship between two countries — and the nature of that relationship is not friendly, but predatory, threatening to destroy America’s economic position. The statistical weight of this relationship on global trade and capital flows is awesome. Since 1995, 60% of the world’s cumulative output demand has come from America, which is twice America’s share of global GDP (demand).
and he goes on to tell us how to stop it.
That means Asia’s development is certainly not selfsustaining and without American imports, intra-Asian trade will certainly collapse. This is especially true for China, which only has a current-account surplus with the United States while it is probably in deficit with the rest of the world. As China must import both capital goods and raw materials for what it manufactures for America, its dependence on other countries for its so-called inevitable rise is total. Moreover, Asia’s overcapacity is so massive, so overdependent on American demand and so geared to American prices that Asia could not absorb its own production even if it wanted to. The inevitability of the rise of Asia and China, therefore, is a myth. It is a phenomenon dependent on American indulgence. By withholding trade and investment, it can be stopped …
SBD |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 972 Location: GUAM, USA
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
We are fueling China's military buildup with US $ and setting the stage for a balance of power shift in Asia. The one half of one percent of the Chinese population that are communist Party members will do anything they can to expand their communist base around the globe and maintain their iron grip on power in China.
As we write messages on this forum China is expanding into our own backyard in Central and South America.
_________________ Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bob51 Seaman
Joined: 13 Jan 2005 Posts: 156 Location: Belfast
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
PhantomSgt wrote: | We are fueling China's military buildup with US $ and setting the stage for a balance of power shift in Asia. |
The author of the following piece is Jeffrey Bialos, the former U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial affairs. Since he wrote the piece, Lenovo has received a large order for computers from the U.S. military.
Bob51
Quote: | The U.S. government’s national security review of the sale of IBM’s personal computer business to the Lenovo Group, China’s largest computer maker, raises fundamental questions about the nature of our China policy.
In an era of globalization, will the United States, in a decision that could come in days, engage China and deepen economic and other ties while encouraging change in certain Chinese behaviors? Or will the United States, concerned over the prospect of China as a peer competitor and a threat to U.S. security, develop a policy that effectively ostracizes China and limits our burgeoning economic and business ties?
Behind the scenes, China has long been a focus of deep concern by the Bush administration. The 2001 U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a key military planning document, noted that the United States “will not face a peer competitor in the near future.” However, the QDR then highlights the “possibility … a military competitor with a formidable resource base will emerge” somewhere in the “East Asian littoral — from the Bay of Bengal to the Sea of Japan.” Now who might that be?
Beyond Osama Bin Laden, North Korea and Iran, China, with its ongoing military modernization and its consequences for Taiwan, is prominent on the list of U.S. security worries. Indeed, if not for Sept. 11 and the resulting cooperation with China on terrorism, the bilateral relationship today would, in all probability, be far more contentious.
Indeed, China has figured in a number of below-the-surface decisions, from weapon system acquisitions to missile defense to the export of dual-use and military technology. Significantly, recent reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) of foreign acquisitions by firms located in third countries have focused on whether the sale would allow China, through its relationship with the buying country or industry, access to technologies that are “missing pieces” from its military capabilities.
To be sure, we need to approach China with hard-headed realism, using a series of carrots and sticks, and not be seduced by romantic visions of the China market. But we also need to be consistent and not zigzag from one case to another.
On the one hand, we should encourage cooperation in areas of mutual interest (North Korea, the tsunami) and continue to help facilitate China’s role in the global economy and adherence to global trade norms. On the other hand, we should urge greater Chinese internal reforms and discourage inappropriate behavior in areas ranging from human rights to missile proliferation.
We should continue to sharply limit the export of weapons and military technology to China and press Europe to do likewise, whether it removes the European Union embargo or not.
Yet even with this balanced approach, it is difficult to see a legitimate national security basis on which to bar the Lenovo acquisition. Arguably, it is more beneficial to U.S. security to allow these types of sales and, in the process, make China a greater stakeholder in global stability.
To deny the acquisition, CFIUS, and ultimately the president, must find “credible” evidence that Lenovo’s ownership of IBM’s personal computer (PC) business threatens to impair national security. In this case, it’s hard to see how this high standard can be met. IBM’s PC hardware and technology is ubiquitous, and in a globalized economy, entirely accessible to China without the deal. Indeed, many laptop computers sold in the United States have Chinese origin or content.
Certainly, there are some types of high-level software with defense applications or specialized computer hardware that could enhance China’s military capabilities, such as helping it better network its military assets. Yet there is no indication that the IBM PC business — a hardware operation — has these types of capabilities.
Other supposed risks also seem relatively easy to address through safeguards and commitments by the parties. The idea that an influx of Lenovo’s Chinese managers into the United States will provide a base for industrial espionage on other IBM facilities or sites seems dubious, and can be handled through physical security measures. Undoubtedly, U.S. intelligence estimates will focus on the fact that Lenovo is partially owned, indirectly, by the Chinese Academy of Sciences — essentially the state — and that there is some concern Chinese state-owned firms will conduct espionage. Yet under this logic, we would deny foreign ownership of perfume or apparel firms situated near defense firms.
Further, the concern that Lenovo’s sales of PCs to the U.S. government would allow it to eavesdrop on or sabotage U.S. infrastructure seems misplaced. Problems associated with software infiltration are a product of the Internet, not the hardware through which the Internet is accessed.
Finally, U.S. rejection of the deal would come at a cost. The large U.S. direct investments in China (more than $2.4 billion in the first half of 2004 alone) and U.S. exports to China (more than $28 billion in 2003) [/size]would be at risk, and Chinese retaliatory actions could be expected.
Jeffrey Bialos is the former U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial affairs, and currently a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University and a partner in the national law firm of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|