|
Money
and the Middle Kingdom, By Bret Swanson (September
24, 2003)
Last week George Gilder and I attended the Forbes
Global CEO Conference in Shanghai. As we peered out from our windows
in the tallest hotel in the world, we saw a once-great cosmopolis
rapidly regaining its status as a giant in world commerce and
innovation. We had heard that 90 percent of the worlds tall
cranes were at work in China, but it was still a surprise to witness
the tens of stunning new skyscrapers and thousands of other tall
buildings, all at various stages of construction, piercing the
coastal haze.
As we met with Jack Ma, the founder of the Chinese
Internet, toured a Siemens mobile handset plant and the GE global
research center, rode one of the worlds fastest trains,
the 430-kilometer-per-hour MAGLEV, and drove by many of the numerous
semiconductor fabs that will overtake the U.S. in chip capacity
by the end of the year, we saw and felt the entrepreneurial energy
pulsing through a society that had been closed off and repressed
for the last 500 years.
The mayor of Shanghai kicked off the Forbes conference
with a speech full of praise for businessmen and entrepreneurs,
confirming the simple but startling conclusion we had already
reached many months ago: the Chinese Communist Party is now far
more capitalistic than the U.S. Democrats and many of our Republicans,
too.
U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow had been in country
the week before offering advice to Chinas monetary authorities,
implicitly blaming them for the slide in American manufacturing.
The suggestion is that China is stealing jobs and growth through
predatory foreign exchange gymnastics. Now, we know contortions
when we see themthe City of Shanghai threw a dinner for
us, complete with opera singers, three-year-old dancing pixies,
a virtuoso violinist, and, yes, two ultra-limber death-defying
contortionists. But the Chinese miracle of 10 percent growth for
25 years is not the result of clever currency manipulation. Since
1994, China has pegged the yuan to the dollar, quite the opposite
of exchange predation. As David Malpass of Bear Stearns notes,
much of Chinas success has come from its explicit commitment
to a strong and stable currency.
Were Karl Rove merely scapegoating China to curry
rhetorical favor with a few rust-belt constituencies, the suggestion
would pass without a note from the markets, or us. Rove and Snow
are right to view China as Americas biggest strategic challenge.
But Sec. Snows official call for free-floating exchange
rates threatens to extend a string of serious monetary blunders
at Treasury stretching back to the Clinton Administrationand
to break the momentum of stable money developments around the
world.
Just a few years ago, the major European nations
took a major step toward stable money when they adopted a common
currency known as the Euro. It was designed to make the travel
of goods, services, capital, and people more efficient. The Euro
eliminated numerous central bankers working at cross-purposes
and put a stop to constantly fluctuating exchange rates. European
companies could now make decisions based on business strategy,
not the unpredictable political actions of a dozen neighboring
nations.
The father of supply-side economics, Robert Mundell,
won the 1999 Nobel Prize for his work that led to the Euros
adoption. But his idea was not entirely new. The U.S. had essentially
adopted this strategy at its founding when Alexander Hamilton
successfully argued that a common money would facilitate commerce
among the states. Nonetheless, the Euro was the most significant
endorsement of fixed exchange rates and stable money since the
Bretton Woods regime fell in 1971.
Last weekend at the G7 meeting in Dubai, however,
the U.S. and Europe renounced the very concept their member states
practice at home. Instead of urging a stable value of money across
geographic regions, the U.S. and Europe set another standard for
the rest of the world, calling for more flexibility in exchange
rates ... to promote smooth and widespread adjustments in the
international financial system, based on market mechanisms.
But money is a standard of measure, like a yardstick
or a clock. Would the U.S. Treasury promote widespread adjustments
of the yard or the hour based on market mechanisms?
Would it encourage Nevada and Arizona to float their own currenciesand
then deflate thembecause California is losing businesses
and jobs to these neighboring states? No. If exchange rates are
stable, we know the movement of capital and jobs is happening
because other costs like taxes, regulations, and wage rates vary
between regions. These movements offer useful feedback, telling
governments what they must do to be more competitive. With dollar-yuan
stability since 1994, the divergent U.S.-China growth rates tell
us that China is providing a better economic environment for its
entrepreneurs.
The weekend G7 communiqué sent the dollar
falling and startled world equity markets, which had been on a
tear all summer. The Nasdaq, for example, lost 3.33 percent the
first three days this week, and in so doing reinforced Professor
Mundells essential thesis: Whenever the exchange rate
overshoots it affects the real value of taxes, the value of all
financial assets, the domestic price level and eventually wage
rates. An unstable exchange rate means unstable financial markets,
and a stable exchange rate means more stable financial markets.
We fervently hope Snow, Rove, and President Bush
get the message that global marketsand the U.S. economyarent
fond of protectionist policies, no matter how well they poll during
a jobless recovery. But the administration has been
all too willing to match much-needed domestic tax cuts with destructive
international tax increases (think steel tariffs). Where it has
finally come to rely on supply-side pro-growth policies at home,
it views the international arena as a zero-sum game, where either
China or the U.S. can grow, but not both.
Luckily, the Chinese are not playing that game.
Back in Shanghai, Steve Forbes made the front pages of all the
newspapers with his advice to ignore the U.S. and the G7 on currency
matters and keep the yuan stable. And this week Chinese officials
insisted the value of the yuan is an internal matter,
implying the strong and stable policy is here to stay.
This suggests the Chinese boom will continue, and whether the
White House knows it or not, a Chinese boom is good for America.
|