The New York Times ran on January 16 an analysis of the dramatic drop in international trade since last summer. Virtually every major economy has suffered a drop. (See this graphic which sums it up quite nicely). There has been undoubtedly a reduction in demand as economies turn into recession. The countries that pursued export-led economic strategies have paid the heaviest price — China’s exports to the US were down 3% as US retailers cut back orders sharply for the Christmas season. Again the New York Times ran a good analysis on January 21 and the misery is felt even in low wage countries like Indonesia.
Another reason was the sharp reduction in credit. With the collapse of many major creditors and the remainder becoming extremely skittish about lending, trade has been hit particularly hard. Banks have cash on hand and even guarantees such as from the US EXIM Bank but still there is a reluctance to lend. The new O’Bama administration, in concert with the leaders of other major industrialized nations, needs to add trade finance to the list of areas where banks need to be nudged.

One of the features of the Great Depression brought on by protectionism (Smoot Hawley Act in the US) was the dramatic decline in trade volume. The lack of credit can have the same effect. The world economies cannot recover without adequate trade finance facilities.

It’s going to be a difficult New Year. Send me your thoughts on how international business can cope in the recession.

Gung Hay Fat Choy!

The New York Time has been running an oustanding series entitled “The Reckoning” which explores the causes of the global economic crisis. I recommend the one published this week entitled “Chinese Savings Helped Inflate American Bubble” by Mark Landler. Landler pointed out how Chinese money (from the huge export surplus due to the fixed exchange rate policy) helped the US run a risky economic policy (sharply expansive fiscal policy fueled by large deficits at the same time as an expansive monetary policy from a low interest rate policy). The first to write about the phenomenon was a leading economist (guess who?). Landler starts off the article:

In March 2005, a low-key Princeton economist who had become a Federal Reserve governor coined a novel theory to explain the growing tendency of Americans to borrow from foreigners, particularly the Chinese, to finance their heavy spending.

The problem, he said, was not that Americans spend too much, but that foreigners save too much. The Chinese have piled up so much excess savings that they lend money to the United States at low rates, underwriting American consumption.

This colossal credit cycle could not last forever, he said. But in a global economy, the transfer of Chinese money to America was a market phenomenon that would take years, even a decade, to work itself out. For now, he said, “we probably have little choice except to be patient.”

Today, the dependence of the United States on Chinese money looks less benign. And the economist who proposed the theory, Ben S. Bernanke, is dealing with the consequences, having been promoted to chairman of the Fed in 2006, as these cross-border money flows were reaching stratospheric levels.

As I blogged previously, the US consumption binge was fueled with Chinese money. The trade policy of a fixed exchange rate allowed China to price its goods aggressively in the US markets. China however had to sterilize the inflationary effects of the export surplus by buying up the excess dollars. It then invested those dollars in Treasury securities, even though the Fed was keeping US rates low. (Other Asia export-oriented countries did similarly with their surpluses, although at a much smaller scale.)

The US made its share of economic mistakes as well. The Bush Administration started two wars without raising taxes, relaxed financial regulation and supervision and took advantage of the Alan Greenspan’s low interest rate policy. In the ensuing party, the banks gave away mortgages to just about anyone, causing a huge housing bubble. Unfortunately, US policy makers focused largely on the domestic US market, and thus they missed the “blinking red light.” The US inflation indicators excluded the wealth effects of higher stock indices and higher housing prices. Without those two components, inflation looked under control, especially in the consumer goods portion of the CPI where Chinese imports kept down prices. The little that US policy makers looked at international issues was with regard to the euro/dollar or yen/dollar relationship.
One lesson that has to be learned is the US is inextricably entwined in the world economy and that it no longer sets the agenda. It can play a leadership role if it chooses to participate in the game. The incoming Obama administration has the intellectual horsepower to make that mental shift. My New Year’s wish is that the Obama administration will formulate its economic policies with a global vision.

A number of months ago, I blogged about the interconnectedness of modern financial markets. The events of the last month have clearly demonstrated this. 

We have to look back about a decade for the origins of the crisis which had its origins in the US policy to promote home ownership. In 1997, the US changed its rules on capital gains to allow individuals to avoid (on two properties no less) capital gains tax on less than $500,000. (Remember that the US allows a personal tax deduction on interest only for those associated with a home mortgage.) After that, banks and other lenders began liberalizing the documentation required to get home loans and lots of people qualified for loans that previously couldn’t. People do react to the economic incentives around them and the prices of houses in real terms began to soar — who couldn’t afford to be part of the great bonanza provided by Uncle Sam. 

A second enabling factor was the huge fiscal deficit by the United States. George W. Bush decided to fight two global wars without a tax increase. The result was over a trillion dollars injected into the economy. 

Next, the expansive fiscal policy was complemented by an accommodating monetary policy. From early 2001 when the tech downturn took place and accelerating after the 9/11 attacks, the Fed cut and maintained interest rates at very low levels. From their point of view, the Fed looked at domestic inflation and saw little impact, but did see a continuing weak economy. It continued its accommodating monetary policy into 2005-7.  

Both the White House and Fed saw the positive impact of their policies in a steady US expansion. What they missed were the negative results. First, despite the grossly expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, there was little US inflation as measured by the CPI or WPI.  Why — first of all housing prices were not included in the CPI — only rental prices as a proxy. Secondly, Washington didn’t look at the role of international markets. – specifically tradable versus non-tradable goods and services. 

While US prices have not move dramatically over the past years, the subsets have. Internationally traded goods — like food, clothing and consumer goods — have shown little growth and in the case of electronics, prices have fallen. Why? Because as international trade barriers have fallen, cheaper international goods have flooded the US marketplace. The consumer has profited from lower prices. There have been negative effects for those workers in those industries who saw their jobs move overseas. Non-traded goods, like health care and education, soared since consumers had extra money in their pockets (often after having taken out second mortgages on their homes that suddenly were worth much more). And the non-traded good with the largest price increase — houses — were excluded from the index. In short, we exported part of the inflation (and at the same time lots of US jobs) and we were baffled at why education and health care continued to rise far faster than the CPI. 

As Americans purchased more goods and services from overseas, the trade and current account deficits soared. Suddenly there were lots of US dollars flooding world currency markets. Here comes in the last element — normally, the rates of exchange would have corrected themselves by making dollars cheaper, pushing exports and decreasing imports. However during most of this time, China wanted to keep its exchange rate fixed to ensure continued export competitiveness. The Chinese were able to support the RMBI only by buying up the excess dollars, with which they bought US Treasury notes. 

US home prices started turning down in late 2006 and accelerated this past year. As a result, many found their home prices less than the mortgage, causing defaults. That cascaded from the mortgage holders to the guarantors of the mortgages (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to the investment banks (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers) to the insurers of the derivatives (AIG). At the same time, the Chinese government lost the capacity to control the influx of cash and resultant inflation. It has let the RMBI appreciate at a 15% per year rate and took severe measures to restrict the leverage of the Chinese banks. When the financial crisis hit in the US, the Chinese were also worried about buying US securities, accelerating the global credit crunch. 

What’s the moral in this? Bad economic policy catches up with you. In this interconnected world, the results may be less easy to see, but the markets eventually punish excesses. So for all those who say Wall Street greed led to the collapse, you missed the essential elements. The bubble couldn’t have built up except for huge fiscal deficits, tax policy pumping up one sector, accommodating monetary policy and attempts internationally to fix exchange rates. Wall Street firms are supposed to be greedy — it’s the job of the politicians and ordinary citizens to make sure that this doesn’t happen. 

This year’s Olympics were a triumph for China and awakened considerable interest in this rising power. Here are a couple of great resources for you to check out on doing business in China.
Song White, who has incredible experience in doing business in China, has developed Beijing Show and Go which provides a translation aid for in Mandarin and English especially for Beijing. While you’re there, check out her regular site, White Song Books, which also has telephone cards for China. It’s certainly much cheaper than paying for the international rate for phone call from your mobile phone when you’re just calling around the corner.

“The Little Red Book of Doing Business in China” is a great book which takes sayings from Chairman Mao to understand the how and why of doing business in contemporary China. The author, Sheila Melvin, spent seven years working in China, including for the Shanghai chapter of the US-China Chamber of Commerce. This is far and away the best guide for understanding the business culture of China that I’ve come across.

Another great book to help you understand the culture and thought processes of China is “China Road, A Journey into the Future of a Rising Power” by Rob Gifford.  Rob, for many years the NPR correspondent in Beijing, writes about a trip he took from Shanghai to the Kazakhstan border on one of China’s national roads. Much like the US Route 66, parts of the road have been replaced by superhighway, but like Route 66, the trip to the cities and small towns reveals the soul of the country. One of the features of the books is that it takes face on the strengths and the problems of contemporary China, including pollution, ethnic minorities and human rights. This is a great read that I recommend highly.

The media is reporting today that the latest round of WTO talks has (again) collapsed. Having been involved with trade talks since the mid 1970’s, my reaction is ‘it ain’t over until its over.’ Talks may string out over time but they eventually pick up where they left off.

That being said, today’s news comes at a difficult moment for the world economy. The US is finally accepting that it is in recession (housing prices nationwide down 16% yr/yr and where I live 35%) and there is a real credit crunch at this moment. Europe, also suffering from a bursting real estate bubble and run-up in oil prices, also faces a period of slow growth — perhaps even a downturn. It’s at times like these, that our political leaders have to take brave steps of keeping open and expanding markets despite domestic political pressures from declining industries.

It is particularly ironic, however, that China and India seem to bear the responsibility for the latest breakdown in the trade talks. Their economies have the most to gain and the most to lose in this period of economic uncertainty. Both have just emerged on the world stage as important exporting nations. With that newfound status playing as equals on the stage of the major industrialized countries, comes the responsibility to resist domestic political pressures to protect traditional markets. Having benefited from GSP and other programs, their products have had for years preferential access to developed country markets with little required in return. To go the next step, the countries will have to make meaningful concessions, particularly in agricultural markets. Ag markets worldwide have been the last to lose protection, but trade barrier reductions in this area that will benefit consumers worldwide, particularly as we see food commodity prices soar and shortages develop.

There is no question that overall the world is better off for having undertaken over a half-century of tariff and trade barrier reductions. We are a much more interdependent world and political relations between countries have strengthened as trade ties have increased. It’s always a hard sell to the public, but our political leaders know the benefits. And that is why we will have to complete these trade talks, eventually.

International Trade is again an issue in the Presidential campaign. John McCain was in Colombia this week and spoke out in favoring the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the country, calling Obama and the Democrats “protectionists”. The most famous FTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a major issue in the 1992 campaign. H. Ross Perot pilloried NAFTA claiming there would be a “great sucking sound” as Mexico would siphon off jobs from the US to Mexico. That never occurred, and although there were never the major job gains that the George H.W. Bush promised, the US clearly has benefited from tremendous increase in bilateral trade.

How do FTAs work? The countries involved (this could be bilateral as in the case of Chile-US or multilateral as with Central America and the Dominican Republic –CAFTA-DR– with the US) negotiate on both tariff levels and codes of conduct. Most tariffs are reduced to zero, but inevitably some politically sensitive products are excluded (so most are “Almost Free Trade Areas”). On codes of conduct, the countries negotiate on issues like intellectual property, standards, financial services, etc. using the original NAFTA agreement and the WTO codes as a starting point. The resulting agreements have to be ratified by the respective legislative bodies. (In the US, under the negotiating authority, the House and Senate approve it on an up/down vote (no amendments allowed), as opposed to other international treaties which require a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Once the agreements are ratified the governments must pass implementing legislation to bring national law into conformity with the FTA. The FTAs also provide for consultations and dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure that both sides are living up the bargain.

For the US, the FTA is usually a great deal since the US has relatively low tariffs and already has strong laws that the codes cover. The pending agreement with Colombia is a case in point. Virtually all of Colombia’s exports enter the US duty free and Colombian companies already enjoy all of the protections in terms of intellectual property, investment guarantees etc. On the other hand, US exporters face considerable tariff and non-tariff barriers going into Colombia. Clearly the US has lots to gain from an agreement with our South American partner.
Why then is there such opposition from groups like unions and environmental groups? The unions may affected by job losses for union members who are protected from international competition. Frankly, with greater and greater trade, the marginal effect of an FTA with Colombia or South Korea on union jobs will be so small that it would be hard to detect by most statistical analyses. Nevertheless, manufacturing jobs are being outsourced (largely to countries with no FTAs, like China and India) and the unions are looking for scapegoats. On the environmental front, there is the concern that increased production will result in increased environmental damage. The FTA’s all contain environmental clauses, not as strong as some enviros would want, but considerably more that there are in the absence of FTAs (again China and India are prime examples.)

We are in an increasingly interconnected world and FTAs increase the interconnectedness. While there are some inevitable unintended results from FTAs, overall the global economy benefits.

The Bank of China again raised the amount of cash that banks must keep on hand. The reserve requirement limits the amount that a bank can on-lend. At its current level of 16.5%, a bank can lend out approximately six times the deposit base. Until mid-2003, the level was only 6%, allowing the banks to lend out 16 times the deposits. The authorities are trying to limit money supply (M1) growth and this rapid increase in the reserve requirements has done that. Interest rates (both lending and deposit) are up about 100 basis points although inflation remains a concern, particularly in the wake of skyrocketing prices for crude oil and other commodities.
Usually Central Banks regard changing reserve requirements as a sledgehammer approach to controlling inflation. Why did China pick this policy? The basic answer is that the continuing trade and current account surpluses are creating challenges in controlling the money supply. When a dollar comes in from an exporter, the Bank of China is required to convert it into yuan, thus increasing M1. With such a large and continuing surplus, the normal monetary policy controls (buying and selling of treasury notes) are overwhelmed. China has also been reluctant to use the other instrument of a major revaluation of the currency. (Note: the Peoples Bank of China has put the Yuan on a 15% percent annual appreciation course; nevertheless most observers believe that the currency continues to remain undervalued.)The change in reserve requirements is a much more blunt instrument and has effects of tightening credit, taking some wind out of the overheated economy. As noted in previous posts, watch out for major economic contractionary measures after the Olympics.

Taiwan made an important historical choice on March 22 when it elected Ma Ying-jeou, former Nationalist party mayor of Taipei, as its new president. The country is well along a path as a mature democracy, putting back in power the party that had been associated with the dictatorship of Chiang Kai-Shek. Ma won handily 58 to 41% as the electorate strongly supported his policy of closer ties to Beijing.

The Taiwan economy finds itself in a peculiar place. The self-imposed limits on doing business with the mainland, which date back to the Cold War, had limited economic opportunities. It is estimated that almost a million Taiwanese live again in the PRC, with the largest concentration in Shanghai. On paper, Taiwan is the number three foreign investor in the mainland but many independent observers believe that the amount is much larger since Taiwanese companies have had to resort to setting up shell companies in Hong Kong and other countries to get around the official limits on investment in the PRC. Taiwan’s growth this decade has been strong, but many look with envy toward the explosive growth on the mainland. With a higher level of English literacy, Taiwan should be a portal, not a detour, to doing business with China.

My visit to Taiwan occurred two weeks after the elections. The country seemed confident of moving ahead, but like its neighbors it has to deal with the problems of pollution and congestion. The freeways and major highways, many of which are now 40 or 50 years old, are clearly inadequate. But the living standards are clearly on a par with the other Asian democracies and this most recent election bore testament to the strength of democracy in Taiwan, something was in doubt up to only a decade ago.

On the surface, China remains a Marxist-Leninist state. Yet the economic system has lost most of its ideological content. Here are a few scenes:

At the Temple of the Jade Buddha, monks chant while the courtyard is filled with ordinary people — old and young — burning incense sticks that waft their prayers above.

The Maserati dealer shows off a beautiful yellow sports coupe and competes with the Ferrari dealer next door. Meanwhile, outside the street vendors, those peasants from the countryside without work visas for the City, make a few Yuan shining shoes or selling trinkets. Meanwhile down the road, the Shanghai Aesthetic Surgery Center does a booming business.

The City boasts incredible vistas with daring buildings. Yet if you look up towards the sky, the view is obscured with hundreds of wires. Wireless communications have supplanted the old telephone lines but what to do with the legacy of the communist rule?

Sailing into Shanghai’s harbor was an amazing sight. By the entrance from the ocean, the banks of the Yangtze River were littered with the relics of the heavy industry investments of the Central Planning years under Mao and early years of Deng Xiao Peng. As we grew closer to the City, newer construction started to appear. When we rounded the final corner, the massive and daring buildings of new Shanghai appeared.

Shanghai is busy and bustling. As you look up and down busy Nanking Road, people are everywhere, shopping and carrying out business. Along the way, buildings from the Mao era and from before the revolution are being gutted and restored. New highrises are going up by the dozens.

Beside the new Shanghai, there are symptoms of other social problems. The Chinese authorities attempt to slow the rural to urban migration by requiring work visas before the peasants can look for work in the City. As a result, there is a vigorous informal economy. Along the waterfront by the Bund and Nanking Road are hundreds of street vendors selling all manner of goods. We got a number of “Mao” watches with the face of the Chairman and a waving hand — taken from the wind-up Mickey Mouse watches we had as kids.

As with all the cities on our Asia journey, traffic is overwhelming. New freeways are going up but there are already too many vehicles. One can smell the exhaust everywhere. While the new cars must meet strict standards, every effort is made to keep older vehicles running, particularly for delivery vehicles.

Shanghai is the symbol of new China – rapid growth, highly populated and facing major environmental challenges.