World economy too reliant on China and US

Greed

Star
Registered
World Economy

World economy too reliant on China and US, says IMF

Mark Milner
Monday March 7, 2005
The Guardian

The International Monetary Fund is worried that global growth is becoming too reliant on the performance of the US and Chinese economies, according to a report yesterday.

While the Chinese government is seeking to slam the brakes on the country's soaring infrastructure spending, the treasury secretary, John Snow, described the US economy as resilient and dynamic. According to today's edition of the German newspaper Handelsblatt, the IMF's forthcoming World Economic Outlook report will warn of increasing risks to global growth if the US and China slow down at the same time.

"Global growth is to an inappropriate degree linked to the United States and China," the IMF report will say when it is published next month.

"The eurozone and Japan, which together have about one-fourth of the world's gross domestic product, have once again disappointed. Thus the risks are increased that there could later be a sharp downturn especially if the United States and China are hit with economic slowing."

On Saturday the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said that the government was seeking to restrict the growth in spending on fixed assets to 16% - down from 25% in 2004. Workers have been told to expect smaller pay increases.

As China seeks to put the brakes on its economic expansion Mr Snow was bullish in his assessment of the strength of the American economy despite the renewed strength of the oil price over the last month.

Although he acknowledged that energy prices were "way too high" Mr Snow said they were not in a danger zone as far as the US economy was concerned.

"The American economy is so strong, so robust right now that we have blown right through these very high energy prices.

"The American economy is very resilient, its very adaptive, its very dynamic, but clearly these energy prices create headwinds."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1431847,00.html
 
Last edited:
Lazy ass Europeans

EU economy ‘at level of US in 1970s'
By Tobias Buck in Brussels
Published: March 10 2005 19:01

The European Union's economy today is where the US economy was in the late 1970s, according to a provocative study. It shows that the employment rate of just over 64 per cent attained by the EU in 2003, the latest year for which comparable data are available, was achieved in the US in 1978. Research and development spending in the EU matches the US level in 1979.

Europe's performance is slightly better in terms of gross domestic product per head, where the 2003 figure of $25,336 (€18,881, £13,176) corresponds to US data for 1985.

Europe's 2003 GDP per worker, meanwhile, was achieved in the US in 1989.

The study, to be presented today by Eurochambres, the pan-European business organisation, underlines the challenge for European Union policymakers as they struggle to improve the competitiveness of the European economy.

EU heads of government will decide this month on proposals to relaunch the Lisbon Agenda, an ambitious set of reforms and targets that aims to boost Europe's competitiveness vis-a-vis the US and other leading economies.

José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, has made the relaunch the priority of his five-year tenure.

The Commission wants to focus on improving spending on research and development, reducing the regulatory burden for businesses and making the EU a more attractive place for investment and job creation.

But as today's study suggests, the bloc will have to outperform the US substantially in the years ahead simply to draw level with the American economy.

“It will take the EU until 2056 to reach US productivity rates per [person] employed, and then only if EU productivity growth [exceeds] that of the US by 0.5 per cent per year,” the Eurochambres study says.

It adds that since 1994, US productivity growth has outpaced the EU's.

On R&D investment, the EU would have to wait until 2123 to match US levels and then only if investment were to exceed that in the US by 0.5 per cent every year.

Christoph Leitl, president of Eurochambres, said: “We urge European leaders at the summit [later this month] to focus on the economy because without the economy, Europe does not have a future. It's a question of survival.”

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/119895e0-9196-11d9-8a7a-00000e2511c8.html
 
Re: Lazy ass Europeans

good shit looks like we might be headin for another market crash if mf's don't fix shit soon esp with the social security shit goin the way it is
 
Re: Lazy ass Europeans

Sah S!NCere said:
good shit looks like we might be headin for another market crash if mf's don't fix shit soon esp with the social security shit goin the way it is
what part of those 2 articles make you think a downturn is near?

personally, i didnt get that.
 
Re: Lazy ass Europeans

I didn't see anything about a down turn but we know its coming
 
China emerges as global consumer

China emerges as global consumer

China has overtaken the US in the consumption of basic agricultural and industrial goods, a survey has found.

With a booming economy and 1.3bn people, it is now the world's largest consumer of grain, meat, coal and steel, said the Earth Policy Institute.

But China's insatiable demands are putting ever more pressure on the country's natural resources.

Air and water pollution are already serious problems, and there is talk of a looming ecological crisis.

China is well ahead of the US in the consumption of goods such as television sets, refrigerators and mobile phones, according to the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute.

However, per capita consumption in China - the world's most populous country - remains far below that of the US.

According to the report:

* 64m tons of meat were consumed in China in 2004 compared to 38m tons in the US

* 258m tons of steel were used in China in 2003 compared to 104m in the US

* China's factories and homes burned 40% more coal than in the US

* The number of PCs in China is doubling every 28 months.

The latest official figures for the Chinese economy, the sixth-largest in the world, show it is growing at an even faster rate than expected.

It expanded by 9.5% in 2004, its highest rate for eight years, the figures show.

"China's eclipse of the United States as a consumer nation should be seen as another milestone along the path of its evolution as a world economic leader," Lester Brown, the institute's president, said.

"China is no longer just a developing country," he said. "It is an emerging economic superpower, one that is writing economic history".

Illegal timber

The report said China's massive appetite for goods ranging from grain to platinum had placed it "at the centre of the world raw materials economy".

One of these raw materials is wood - and the illegal trade in stolen timber is stripping Asia of its last substantial forests, according to a report by the US and UK-based Environmental Investigations Agency and Indonesian campaigning group Telapak.

Indonesia is now suffering the fastest rate of deforestation in the world, losing a wooded area the size of Switzerland every year.

According to investigators, Chinese factories process one stolen Indonesian log every minute of every working day.

Deforestation is not the only unwanted consequence of China's huge consumption of natural materials, says the BBC's Louisa Lim in Beijing.

Coal-fired power plants supply much of the country's energy and according to government estimates, 60% of Chinese cities have serious air pollution problems, she says.

The Kyoto Protocol considers China a developing nation, and it is currently exempt from cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Experts also say that more than three-quarters of the water flowing through China's cities is unsuitable for drinking because of pollution from industrial waste, according to our correspondent.

Scores of rivers have dried up and water tables are getting ever lower.

An official from the Chinese environmental watchdog, Panyue, said the nation's resources and its environment had already reached the limits of their capacity to cope.

Initial moves are now being taken to enforce environmental laws, but moves in this direction could ignite new tensions between government agencies and big business.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4272577.stm
 
THREATENING CHINA

Senators voted 67-33 in favor of threatening China with trade retaliation if it does not change its currency policy, but the measure remained in limbo because of a legislative turf battle.

The amendment, reflecting anger over the U.S. trade deficit with China that reached a record $162 billion last year, would give China six months to revalue its currency or face a possible 27.5 percent tariff on its exports to the United States.

The Bush administration opposes the amendment as too harsh.

The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the issue, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, warned the Finance Committee could block the overall bill if it contains the China measure.

By voice vote, the Senate also moved to block European consortium AgustaWestland, a unit of Finmeccanica SpA, from getting a $10 billion contract to build a new U.S. presidential helicopter fleet. The Navy awarded the contract in January to AgustaWestland, teamed with Lockheed Martin Corp., beating out Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp., which has built and maintained the presidential helicopters for 50 years.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, said most senators were not aware of the measure pushed by Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), a Connecticut Democrat. Warner vowed to "use every parliamentary device" to block the amendment.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050407/pl_nm/foreign_congress_dc_7
 
World Bank says global economy has peaked

World Bank says global economy has peaked
Apr 07 09:15
AFP

The World Bank has warned that momentum in world economic growth has peaked, with ballooning global imbalances still a major threat, while the IMF has warned that high oil prices are also putting a brake on growth.

In its annual global development finance report released overnight, the World Bank said the global economic expansion has reached a turning point. It now expects growth to slow to 3.1 per cent this year from 3.8 per cent in 2004.

Separately, the International Monetary Fund warned that high oil prices are increasingly a "downside risk" to the global economy, and has forecast they will trim a sizeable chunk off growth this year.

The signals by the two sister institutions came ahead of their joint annual meetings in Washington later this month, and a week before the IMF publishes its twice-yearly outlook on the state of the global economy.

In its report overnight, the World Bank - which focuses on delivering development assistance to the poorest nations - noted that developing countries outgrew high-income countries in 2004 and gains were widespread.

"But global growth momentum has peaked, and developing country gains are vulnerable to risks associated with adjustments to ballooning global imbalances -- especially the $US666 billion US current account deficit," the report added.

The strong global performance in 2004 was underpinned by solid US growth (4.4 per cent) and rapid expansion in China, India and Russia.

Developing nations grew at an average 6.6 per cent pace, supported by a surge in financial flows not seen since the financial crises of the late 1990s.

Net private capital flows, including debt and equity to developing countries, increased by $51 billion dollars to $301.3 billion in 2004, the report said.

"This recovery of financial flows is a welcome sign of renewed market interest in developing countries and a tribute to the substantial strengthening in economic fundamentals achieved in many countries," said Francois Bourguignon, the World Bank's chief economist.

"But we should also keep in mind that current global financial imbalances pose risks -- of disorderly exchange rate movements, or of interest rate increases -- that could threaten these gains. Developing countries need to prepare themselves for adjustments, some of which could be sudden.

IMF managing director Rodrigo Rato, in a newspaper interview published on Wednesday, said that surging oil prices would hurt global economic growth.

"The high price of oil will cut growth of the global economy by at least 0.25-0.50 percentage points again this year," Rato told the German business daily Handelsblatt. Oil prices surged to new records this week, topping a high of $US58.28 in New York on Monday, even if they have since eased from their highs in profit-taking.

"We've revised upwards sharply our calculations for the annual average price of oil this year," Rato said.

While in September the IMF had been penciling in an average annual oil price of $US37.30 per barrel this year, it raised that forecast to $US46.50 in March. And now the price was expected to average around $US51.90 dollars, Rato said.

"High oil prices are increasingly becoming a downside risk," he warned.

"The same can be said of the widening global current account deficits, the difference between growth and savings rates," the IMF chief added. :The economies of Asia, China and the United States are dynamic, while Europe and Japan are lagging behind." So far, the global economy had been able to absorb such imbalances "in an orderly fashion... but if oil prices, inflation and currency movements trigger abrupt changes, the situation could deteriorate dramatically," Rato said.

http://afr.com/articles/2005/04/07/1112815639135.html
 
Poorest nations lead global growth

Poorest nations lead global growth
Charlotte Moore
Thursday April 7, 2005
The Guardian

Developing countries grew at their sharpest rate for three decades last year, faster than wealthy nations, the World Bank said yesterday. It warned, however, that wealthy nations were not increasing aid fast enough to stamp out poverty.

Even sub-Saharan Africa, which includes some of the world's poorest nations, became wealthier last year, helped by soaring commodity prices - the region is rich in oil and metals.

Tony Blair said when he released his Commission for Africa report last month that poverty on the continent was the "greatest tragedy of our time". But he added the increasing number of democratic countries and the decrease in conflicts meant this was a good time to stimulate growth. The Bank noted in its report yesterday that such factors helped to increase the gross domestic product of the sub-Saharan region last year by 3.8%, compared with 2003.

Article continues
China was the fastest growing nation last year with its economy increasing by 9.5%. India and Russia also performed well, expanding by 7%. Overall, the Bank expects global growth to ease from 3.8% to 3.1% this year. However, developing nations will continue to outpace wealthy countries.

"The Bank welcomes the strong growth of developing nations. We see this as a reflection of the policies that have been put in place over the last 20 years," said Andrew Burns, a senior World Bank economist.

George Bush this month announced the appointment of one of his favoured neo-conservative advisers, Paul Wolfowitz, as the new head of the World Bank, replacing James Wolfensohn.

The appointment caused anger among the development community but Mr Wolfowitz has attempted to win over his critics by striking a conciliatory tone and underlining the World Bank's multilateralist role.

Yesterday the Bank criticised the shortfall in aid to developing nations.

In real terms, aid grew by just 5% in 2003. The international community has promised to achieve the Millennium Development Goals to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.

Jeffrey Lewis, the manager of international finance at the Bank, said: "Reaching the Millennium Development Goals is going to require a lot more resources from the wealthy nations." The United Nations has said wealthy countries should spend 0.7% of GDP on aid; only five nations at present spend this much, with the United States contributing only 0.14% of its GDP to aid.

"The shortfall on aid is particularly noteworthy and unfortunate," said Mr Lewis. "Developing nations have matched their promises of undertaking reforms but the wealthy nations have failed to match their side of the bargain."

The report called for action on four fronts if the goals are to be achieved. "Donors must fulfil commitments to substantially increase aid and other resources," said the report.

It also urged donors to pursue efforts to make aid flows more reliable and aid spending more effective.

The development community should also support policies to allow poor countries better access to rich countries' markets, which are often protected by high tariffs, said the report.

In contrast to the disappointing flow of aid, foreign direct investment grew strongly last year by 9% to $14bn. But most of the money went to the five most rapidly growing nations: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and the Russian Federation accounted for 88% of the net increase and 60% of the total amount.

The Bank also warned that the huge dollar reserves accumulated by developing nations, particularly China, could be dangerous. The dollar has weakened sharply over the last two years as a result of the huge US current account deficit.

"Countries that have accumulated large dollar-denominated reserve holdings face acute pressures and large potential investment losses from the weakening dollar," said the report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1453883,00.html
 
Re: Poorest nations lead global growth

<font size="6">China's Economy: Crash or Slow Decline?</font size>

By Rodger Baker
for STRATFOR

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is warning that China's seemingly unrestrained growth could come back to haunt it. In its just-published World Economic Outlook report, the IMF warns of continued strong growth in the Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) fed by runaway investment, low interest rates and tight monetary controls. All of these trends could damage the Chinese economy if they remain unaddressed.

Stratfor has long been pessimistic about the future of the Chinese economy because of certain structural and political issues in China. Despite frequent criticism of our bearish view, China's economic problems are now becoming conventional wisdom, with the new debate over the style of the Chinese downturn rather than its potential existence.

The current debate internationally centers on whether China will have a sudden crash like the 1997 Asian economic crisis or a slow, steady, Japanese-style decline -- one not really recognized until years into it. A similar debate is taking place in China. The central government has allowed for very open and frank discussions of the Chinese economic situation in recent years, encouraging think tanks, academic institutions and government economists to discuss and debate both at home and abroad the problems and possible solutions.

Chinese state-run media also have given a much clearer view of the troubles plaguing the Chinese economy than foreign financial journals -- at least until recent days. Official newspapers run regular articles on regional disparities, the urban-rural gap, government corruption, structural inefficiencies with banks and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the like. The widespread discussions and openness reflect the government's difficulties in figuring out just what is going on and how to address it without losing power or control.

One of the most important factors in China's inability to truly address its economic troubles is not even an economic issue per say. Rather, it is the inability of the central government to control regional and local officials. This has been a developing problem in China and is nearing crisis mode. When Jiang Zemin was president and Zhu Rongji was premier, they recognized and tried to address some of the more pressing aspects of this problem, including the lack of accurate statistics and the undermining of Communist Party authority because of corruption and nepotism.

One of the biggest troubles facing Zhu in guiding the Chinese economy was a lack of real knowledge of the status of the economy itself. Years of state economic targets had engrained in the system a culture of fudging numbers. No township, city or provincial leader wanted to tell his immediate superior he missed his target, and so he would inflate the numbers, hiding whatever losses, corruption and theft there was. On up the chain this went, always fudging numbers based on other fudged numbers; a true picture of the economy was impossible.

Zhu initiated changes in statistical reporting and some progress was made, but given that the real numbers were much less rosy than the fabricated ones, a certain amount of falsification was overlooked. At the same time, however, some steps were made to find some of the missing money and shore up the party's mandate. In 1979, then-President Deng Xiaoping set China on a new course, one where the concept of financial growth was justification enough for the existence of the party as the single core of leadership. This emphasis on personal financial gain rather then revolutionary zeal continued to be promoted under Jiang Zemin.

But Jiang also recognized that unrestrained growth was undercutting the authority of the central party core, since financial wealth didn't come from Beijing. Jiang purged the military of its economic holdings, reclaiming central control and allegiance by becoming once again the main source of defense funding. At the same time, Jiang and Zhu began very public anti-corruption campaigns aimed at regaining some central control and mitigating a growing distaste for the party by rural and urban Chinese alike.

But the measures were not complete, and when corruption scandals were hitting too close to home, the central authorities pulled back. The central government had, and continues to have, two overriding and connected priorities in all it sets out to accomplish -- the maintenance of the party and the maintenance of social stability -- and too many anti-corruption efforts only reinforced the depth and scope of corruption, undermining the positive perceptions engendered by action against the corrupt.

One closely related element that is still present is the inability of the central leadership to enforce its edicts at the grass-roots level. Local and provincial leaders have established themselves based less on their loyalty to Beijing and more on their connections within their respective regions. When Beijing decides that free government bailouts to SOEs are no good, local governments balk. The impact of a few thousand laid off workers in a southern city is minimal to China as a whole, but to the local leader, it can be ruinous.

In addition, economic ties by local leaders to the business interests in their districts often fund their own family members and themselves and give them increased power. If a coastal city is able to bring in foreign businesses, money and technology, it can build its own power base, and central government edicts become much less pressing.

And this is the core of the Chinese problem. Even if the central government came up with a brilliant plan for a massive restructuring of the economy, it is unlikely to be implemented locally. Beijing has difficulty squeezing money out of the profitable coastal provinces to fund development in the inland provinces, where the urban-rural gap continues to grow and social unrest boils over much more regularly.

When Beijing tried to slow lending in 2004, it was unsuccessful; local and regional banks and governments simply made up for the reduced money coming from the center. The unrestrained investment the IMF worries about is caused by local governments that are thinking and acting for themselves, and as their interests coincide more with foreign investors than neighboring provinces, Beijing's grip will continue to slip. This ultimately will undermine the central government's economic plans, no matter how brilliant those plans are.
 
US told to halt spending spree

the rest of the world wants america to stop having the most dynamic economy just because they cant keep up.

but i especially like how this article rips into the EU's excess laziness.


US told to halt spending spree
Credit card excess means economic turbulence, warns IMF

Richard Adams in Washington
Thursday April 14, 2005
The Guardian

The International Monetary Fund told the United States to cut up its credit cards yesterday, in a stark warning that the world's largest economy needs to spend less to stave off potential turbulence.

"The United States needs to save more," said Raghu Rajan, the IMF's chief economist, at the launch of the World Economic Outlook, the IMF's twice-yearly report on the global economy.

According to the IMF report, international economic performance is being dangerously unbalanced by the US's twin budget and trade deficits sucking up a disproportionate share of world activity.

"The US consumer, who has bought the world out of recession, needs to rest tired feet and save more," Mr Rajan said.

The report shows that the bright spots of robust growth in 2004 - when the world economy expanded by 5.1%, its fastest rate for decades - may be overshadowed by the unsteady concentration of rapid growth in the US and China, and the dangers of see-sawing oil prices.

The IMF is forecasting continued strong growth during the next two years, with global output expanding by 4.3% this year, and 4.4% in 2006. It nudged up its projections for US growth, which it predicts will increase by a rapid 3.6% this year and next.

China's economy, which raced along at 9.5% growth in 2004, is predicted to marginally decelerate to 8.5% this year, and 8% in 2006.

The IMF's analysts remain critical of the eurozone's poor record on growth and employment, as well as becoming more pessimistic about Japan's outlook.

At their sluggish rates of growth, Europe "simply cannot afford its welfare state, while Japan will have difficulty dealing with its fiscal problems", Mr Rajan added.

"When call centres are helping firms around the world squeeze 24 hours into a working day, Europe cannot still be debating stretching 35 hours into a work week," he said, in a reference to France's employment legislation.

Compared with its previous forecast, the IMF has scaled back growth in the eurozone to 1.6% in 2005. It also dramatically slashed its forecasts for Japan's economy back to 0.8% this year and 1.9% in 2006, compared with predictions of 2.6% and 3.4% six months ago.

"Global growth remains unduly dependent on the US and China; growth in the euro area and Japan - together accounting for one fifth of global output - has once again been disappointing," the report said.

"If this situation persists it will widen global imbalances; it would also raise the risks of a more significant slowdown later on, especially if growth in the US and China were to weaken simultaneously."

The report says that the US is especially vulnerable to sharp rises in interest rates or steep falls in the dollar's exchange rate, warning that "a further - possibly disorderly - drop of the US dollar cannot be ruled out". It predicts that the burgeoning US trade deficit will worsen, accounting for 5.8% of the economy's output this year.

Oil remains a big uncertainty for the world's economy, with the IMF forecasting that prices will hover around $45 a barrel this year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1459078,00.html
 
Central American Trade Pact Faces Opposition

Central American Trade Pact Faces Opposition
April 14, 2005

The Bush administration seeks Congress' approval of the free trade agreement it has negotiated with Central American nations. But as the Senate began hearings yesterday, lawmakers signaled that record U.S. trade deficits could make the agreement, known as CAFTA, a tough sell. 3 min 56 sec

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ME&showDate=14-Apr-2005&segNum=2&NPRMediaPref=RM&getAd=1
 
Developing country should stay at the helm of the WTO: candidate

Developing country should stay at the helm of the WTO: candidate
Wed May 11, 5:01 AM ET

GENEVA, (AFP) - As the race to lead the World Trade Organisation nears its climax, Uruguay's candidate said in an interview with AFP that a developing country must remain at the helm of the body that sets the rules for global commerce.

With the World Bank traditionally run by an American and the International Monetary Fund by a European, it is only fair that developing countries have the chance at the WTO, said Carlos Perez del Castillo.

"It would be much better for the workings of the system if one (organisation) could be headed by a developing country," he said.

The WTO, founded in 1995, and its precursor the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, set up in 1947, were previously headed by Europeans.

Perez del Castillo, 60, was Uruguay's ambassador to the 148-nation WTO and has chaired most of its key decision-making bodies. He would be a "bridge-builder," he said.

He and Pascal Lamy, the former European Union trade chief, are the two remaining candidates to replace WTO Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi, of Thailand, whose terms ends on August 31.

The Doha Round of trade talks, launched in 2001, is aimed primarily at expanding free trade in a manner that benefits developing countries, Perez del Castillo noted.

"I think it will give a good signal to the system, saying that this is a development round and that we, the members -- all of them, not only the developing countries -- agree that the conduct of our negotiations should be in the hands of a developing country, that we trust and that can do the job," he said.

Supachai was the first WTO chief from a developing country. He and New Zealander Mike Moore served reduced three-year terms one after the other, in a deal struck to overcome bitter splits during the 1999 leadership race.

Perez del Castillo's rival, Lamy, 58, was nominated by the EU but also has been campaigning as a champion of poor nations, citing EU development policies he spearheaded.

"The question is, what is the difference between Lamy and myself," said Perez del Castillo.

"For me, becoming director general would be a continuation of what I've been doing my whole life. I don't have to rewrite my script or reinvent myself. I've spent 30 years working on trade and development, in the field in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I know their problems."

In an apparent swipe at Lamy, he noted that the Frenchman steered EU trade policy from 1999 to 2004.

Several WTO meetings during that period were riven by splits between rich and poor nations, with developing countries who were seeking farm trade concessions angered by the EU's insistence on talks about investment rules, said Perez del Castillo, without naming Lamy directly.

Supachai's successor must be chosen by the end of this month.

Both Perez del Castillo and Lamy have been lobbying hard for support ahead of Thursday's expected conclusion of confidential meetings intended to gauge support for each man.

Candidates from Brazil and Mauritius were knocked out in the first two rounds last month, while Lamy has led throughout, according to diplomats.

Perez del Castillo said the race is far from over. "It's going to be very tight."

There have been fears that the final round will cause another north-south showdown -- something the WTO can ill-afford after emerging from a damaging rift between rich and poor countries that blocked key global trade talks for months.

But Perez del Castillo said he was not worried. "I've never looked at this as a north-south confrontation," he said.

"At the end of the day it will be up to the (WTO) members to decide who they can live with," he added.

Lamy has formal backing from the 25 EU states.

Diplomats say Paris has pressed countries in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) grouping -- who have privileged access to EU markets -- to swing behind Lamy.

The ACP could play the role of kingmaker and Perez del Castillo also has been meeting with its members.

"Although Lamy certainly has votes in the (ACP) region, it's not a monopoly," he said.

Perez del Castillo is officially backed by Latin American countries, and members of the Cairns Group of major farm exporters, including Australia and New Zealand.

China and Indonesia also back him and he expects India to come out in his favour, he said.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050511/ts_afp/wtotradechiefcandidateuruguay_050511090112
 
The Chinese Connection

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Stories about the new Treasury report condemning China's currency policy probably had most readers going, "Huh?" Frankly, this is an issue that confuses professional economists, too. But let me try to explain what's going on.

Over the last few years China, for its own reasons, has acted as an enabler both of U.S. fiscal irresponsibility and of a return to Nasdaq-style speculative mania, this time in the housing market. Now the U.S. government is finally admitting that there's a problem - but it's asserting that the problem is China's, not ours.

And there's no sign that anyone in the administration has faced up to an unpleasant reality: the U.S. economy has become dependent on low-interest loans from China and other foreign governments, and it's likely to have major problems when those loans are no longer forthcoming.

Here's how the U.S.-China economic relationship currently works:

Money is pouring into China, both because of its rapidly rising trade surplus and because of investments by Western and Japanese companies. Normally, this inflow of funds would be self-correcting: both China's trade surplus and the foreign investment pouring in would push up the value of the yuan, China's currency, making China's exports less competitive and shrinking its trade surplus.

But the Chinese government, unwilling to let that happen, has kept the yuan down by shipping the incoming funds right back out again, buying huge quantities of dollar assets - about $200 billion worth in 2004, and possibly as much as $300 billion worth this year. This is economically perverse: China, a poor country where capital is still scarce by Western standards, is lending vast sums at low interest rates to the United States.

Yet the U.S. has become dependent on this perverse behavior. Dollar purchases by China and other foreign governments have temporarily insulated the U.S. economy from the effects of huge budget deficits. This money flowing in from abroad has kept U.S. interest rates low despite the enormous government borrowing required to cover the budget deficit.

Low interest rates, in turn, have been crucial to America's housing boom. And soaring house prices don't just create construction jobs; they also support consumer spending because many homeowners have converted rising house values into cash by refinancing their mortgages.

So why is the U.S. government complaining? The Treasury report says nothing at all about how China's currency policy affects the United States - all it offers on the domestic side is the usual sycophantic praise for administration policy. Instead, it focuses on the disadvantages of Chinese policy for the Chinese themselves. Since when is that a major U.S. concern?

In reality, of course, the administration doesn't care about the Chinese economy. It's complaining about the yuan because of political pressure from U.S. manufacturers, which are angry about those Chinese trade surpluses. So it's all politics. And that's the problem: when policy decisions are made on purely political grounds, nobody thinks through their real-world consequences.

Here's what I think will happen if and when China changes its currency policy, and those cheap loans are no longer available. U.S. interest rates will rise; the housing bubble will probably burst; construction employment and consumer spending will both fall; falling home prices may lead to a wave of bankruptcies. And we'll suddenly wonder why anyone thought financing the budget deficit was easy.

In other words, we've developed an addiction to Chinese dollar purchases, and will suffer painful withdrawal symptoms when they come to an end.

I'm not saying we should try to maintain the status quo. Addictions must be broken, and the sooner the better. After all, one of these days China will stop buying dollars of its own accord. And the housing bubble will eventually burst whatever we do. Besides, in the long run, ending our dependence on foreign dollar purchases will give us a healthier economy. In particular, a rise in the yuan and other Asian currencies will eventually make U.S. manufacturing, which has lost three million jobs since 2000, more competitive.

But the negative effects of a change in Chinese currency policy will probably be immediate, while the positive effects may take years to materialize. And as far as I can tell, nobody in a position of power is thinking about how we'll deal with the consequences if China actually gives in to U.S. demands, and lets the yuan rise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/opinion/20krugman.html?hp
 
EU move to block trade aid for poor

EU move to block trade aid for poor
Leaked letter says Mandelson will press Blair to weaken deal for developing world
Larry Elliott
Thursday May 19, 2005
The Guardian

Peter Mandelson, Europe's trade commissioner, is seeking to persuade Tony Blair to revise Britain's pro-poor country stance on trade liberalisation, a centrepiece of the government's development agenda for 2005, leaked documents from Brussels revealed last night.

A letter from Peter Carl, the European Commission's top trade official, said Mr Mandelson - still a close confidant of the prime minister - was being used to reverse what Brussels condemned as "a major and unwelcome shift" in the UK's approach.

The government insisted in March that negotiations for economic partnership agreements (EPAs) under way between the European Union and some of the world's poorest countries should not be used as a backdoor means to prise open their markets, but in a strongly-worded attack the commission said the policy was drafted in the run-up to the election following strong lobbying from development organisations.

Britain's approach, it added, had been influenced by "celebrities and NGOs who are now pressing for action", and would have no impact on the commission's negotiation position.

News of the leaked letter prompted a strong response in Whitehall and from development organisations. A Department of Trade and Industry source said: "Our position is based on principle. We regret that the commission has misunderstood our views and we will be taking this up with them."

Gareth Thomas, a Department for International Development minister, said: "[Mr Carl] is wrong in his analysis. We are keen to make EPAs as development friendly as possible."

A spokeswoman for Oxfam said: "This is an example of the European Commission gagging pro-development member states. Tony Blair is trying to do something to help the world's poor and is being hampered by the self-interest of Europe as a trading bloc.

"The European Commission clearly wants to use EPAs as a tool to open markets and further its own interests. This is not good. EPAs in their current form would be detrimental to development. They are free trade agreements by any other name and are currently designed to get the most for Europe without the necessary consideration of the negative effects on weaker developing country partners."

In his letter to EU heads of delegation in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, Mr Carl, director-general of the trade directorate in Brussels, added: "We are discussing the implications of this paper with the UK.

"Peter Mandelson is taking up our concerns and will press for a revised UK line, noting that their statement is contrary to the agreed EU position and harmful for our common objective of promoting development through trade". Trade sources in Brussels confirmed Mr Mandelson had had talks with the former trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, urging the government to take a more moderate line.

"On the whole, that is what the UK has done. Britain has not been pushing its position very hard," one source said.

Brussels, he added, believed Labour had been unduly swayed by development campaigners and that the economic partnership agreements being negotiated with poor countries would fall foul of World Trade Organisation rules unless they contained commitments by developing countries to open their markets at some stage.

"The UK has adopted this approach in order to keep the NGOs on board ahead of the Gleneagles summit," he said. "That's understandable, but the government has bought too much into the NGO agenda."

UK sources strongly denied last night that the government was backing down and noted that Labour's manifesto contained a commitment that poor countries be allowed to liberalise at their own pace. Britain has made better trade access to the west for poor countries one of its central demands for its G8 presidency in 2005, and has urged that poor countries be given a minimum of 20 years to liberalise their markets in return.

Mr Carl's letter said the UK stance "could well make prog-ress with EPA negotiations more difficult by reinforcing the views of the more sceptical ACP states and raising the prospect of alternatives that are, in reality, impractical."

A briefing note attached to Mr Carl's letter noted: "The paper was drafted ... following strong lobbying by the UK NGO community and the publication of the UK Commission for Africa report ... the UK set up this commission to review African development in advance of the UK G8 and EU presidencies. The drive for a commission came from celebrities and NGOs who are now pressing for UK action."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1487141,00.html
 
Re: EU move to block trade aid for poor

THE GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT

<font size="4">The European Crisis</font size>

May 24, 2005 19:38 GMT

France will vote on the new draft European constitution May 29. All 25 EU members must ratify the constitution if it is to take effect. The odds of that happening are pretty slim under any circumstances. However, at the moment it appears that the referendum in France might fail. Whether it actually does is less significant than the fact that France is the engine behind European unification -- and if ratification of the constitution in France is in doubt, it is difficult to imagine how it could possibly pass in many other European countries.

In other words, if unification is a question mark in France, then an EU constitution is not going to pass in its current form, if at all.

This is a dramatic shift in Europe. During the 1990s, the emergence of a transnational European state appeared to be a foregone conclusion. The introduction of the euro seemed to make this inevitable. The new currency made it possible to place control of Europe's money supply in the hands of a transnational central bank. It made little sense to have a European currency without a European state -- it was like wearing a tie without a shirt.
Therefore, since at least part of Europe accept the euro with relative ease, it appeared to follow that the framing document -- a constitution -- would readily follow.

But there is a huge difference in the ways political systems function in relatively prosperous times and in more austere times. Things that are acceptable when the economy is healthy become less tolerable -- or intolerable -- when the economy is weak. This does not mean that the primary issue is economic. The chief obstacle to an EU constitution in France and elsewhere is political and social -- it is the unwillingness to abandon sovereignty. This sensibility is always there, but it is activated when the political ambitions of the new regime interact with hard times. This is doubly the case when people believe that their own problems and votes might have no bearing on the actions or policies of the new political system.

This dilemma is symbolized by the nature of the new constitution -- it is 300 pages long. A constitution must define the regime. It must define institutions and the limits on those institutions. It must define individual rights and, in a federal system, the rights of nonfederal governments. Above all, it must be terse. The more complex it is, the less the ordinary citizen can trust it.

A 300-page constitution, by dint of its very size, sums up the first problem facing Europe: The EU is governed by a bureaucracy whose ways cannot be understood by ordinary citizens, and which does not intend itself to be understood. It is therefore not trusted. A second problem is that the constitution is made up of a series of staggeringly complex compromises that defy clear understanding. If American constitutional law is complex, European constitutional law, as written, is beyond comprehension, let alone debate.

The voters simply don't know what they are voting for. Even if they did favor the principle of European unification, no one really knows, under this constitution, precisely what they would be committing to. This is not a solvable problem. The complexity is inevitable. It derives from an understanding of Europe that relies on specialists rather than citizen-politicians, and an uneasiness among nations that has resulted in a compromise of bewildering complexity. The Europeans either have an incomprehensible constitution, or they have no chance of agreeing on one at all.

Beneath the complexity of the task lies politics.

There were two reasons for creating the EU. The first was to build institutions that would prevent a fourth war between France and Germany. The catastrophic record of European statesmanship created the impulse to tie the hands of European politicians by creating overarching institutions. In other words, transnationalism was designed to overcome Europe's ruinous nationalism.

Second, the European Union, and the European Community before it, were designed to facilitate European prosperity. It was reasonably assumed that a Europe without protectionist barriers would do better than a Europe fragmented into multiple, exclusionary markets. On this level, the EU had a purely utilitarian goal: It was designed for economic ends, and the only justification for its existence was how readily it achieved those ends and how universally it could distribute those benefits across national lines.
The European Union was designed to allow Europe to be competitive in the global marketplace.

Preventing war and generating prosperity are not trivial goals, but they lack the moral drive possessed by the great revolutionary regimes -- France, the United States, the Soviet Union. What binds the EU together is a dream of peace and prosperity. One might argue that this is a more reasonable goal than "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite." But it is also judged by a different
standard: It is possible to sacrifice all to "Workers of the World Unite" or "We hold these truths to be self-evident ." But a regime founded on the principles of safety and prosperity cannot demand sacrifice that threatens either. The idea of a united Europe is not a moral project -- it is a mutually beneficial contract that has no moral hold once those benefits are no longer safeguarded.

This gives the idea of Europe a fundamental fragility. A political system that has no basis on which to justify hardship cannot endure hardship, and hardship is the one certainty that comes to all regimes. In this immediate case, Europe -- or at least France, Germany and Italy, the center of gravity of Europe -- is in serious economic trouble. Growth has slowed to only 1.5 percent per year while unemployment has climbed into the double digits. For these three countries, the EU model is simply not delivering on prosperity.

The existence of a European Central Bank has complicated the situation rather than simplified it. All the countries that have adopted the euro as their currency now are subject to the monetary policies of the European Central Bank. Europe is an extraordinarily diverse place, becoming more diverse every time a new country enters the union or an old one accepts the euro. The ECB has followed policies designed to support the three major members of the euro bloc -- but not all of the euro bloc states are in the same economic position. The problem is that a single policy must hurt some and help others. Since the promise of prosperity is the foundation of the system, how do you keep those who lose out from central bank policies in the system? More to the immediate point, how do you expand the system to give the European state more power when the benefits of the current system become increasingly unclear?

What is interesting, of course, is that the ECB is being extremely solicitous of French needs, and France has been able to simply ignore the stabilization pact that required it to bring its budget into balance. France has been the beneficiary of the system, yet the new constitution is being strongly challenged in France.

The reason has to do with the first goal of the European system -- security.
The old threat to security was a continuation of Europe's wars. But now a new threat -- immigration -- is perceived. Immigration appears threatening on two levels: Economically, it increases competition for jobs; socially, it increases diversity. From an economist's point of view, job competition increases efficiency, while social diversity is a non-quantifiable irrelevancy. They miss the point, to say the least.

In the long run, austerity imposed by job competition and restructuring might be beneficial to an economy. But a 10- or 20-year dose of austerity measures will devastate an entire generation. A person who cannot get satisfactory employment from the age of 25 to 40 has had his life gutted.
The time scale of a human life and the time scale of economic theory do not mesh. In effect, economic theory creates competition between this generation and the next -- and the members of this generation, being alive, tend to win.

Europe either must undergo a massive reinvention or sink into the abyss. In either case, a generation of European workers will pay the price. Like all humans, they will blame someone, and the most logical target -- whether valid or not -- is the immigrant population, whose presence they see as the catalyst for the problem.

There is a deeper level to this. France is France. France was very happy to go to Algeria and declare it "France." Its people have been much less happy to have Algerians come to France and declare it "Algeria." Whatever the irony of it, France is changing demographically, with the inevitable result that many French -- particularly those outside the corporate elite -- don't want their country to change. Even more to the point, some feel that they are losing control of their country to immigrants, and that they no longer have the sovereign right to determine the kind of society they will have.

The EU constitution institutionalizes that powerlessness. The doctrines embedded in the EU recognize the right of immigration from one country to
another: Once you have citizenship somewhere, you have the right to go anywhere within the union. This might make sense from an economist's view of labor markets, but it means that France no longer controls its fate. When Turkey enters the EU, the perception is, an avalanche of Muslim immigrants will sweep France, and the European government's bureaucrats will celebrate the shift instead of stopping it. The guarantees of security are being kept in preventing nation-states from fighting, but not -- it is perceived -- in protecting the traditional way of life in France and other countries.

The issue only partly concerns migration. The deeper issue is sovereignty.
The government of France is asking its people essentially to transfer major elements of sovereignty to a state that France cannot control. The French do not see a common identity with the rest of Europe, and the rest of Europe does not see a common identity with France. The EU is rooted in an alliance of convenience that is rapidly becoming inconvenient.

We do not know what will happen with the French referendum on May 29, but the important thing already has happened. If France cannot be absolutely counted on to vote for the constitution, then the constitution is dead. The founders of the EU would have trouble understanding the issue -- they took their bearings from economic theory and built the system to overcome nationalism, which they saw as the problem.

Nationalism is, however, a foundation of the human experience. We all have our roots in a community, and economics is far from the only value we pursue. Adam Smith knew this, which is why he called his masterpiece "The Wealth of Nations." Nationalism is not an unfortunate and archaic impediment to a more perfect society; it is simply an omnipresent feature of human life. Like greed, it can be condemned, if you get pleasure from doing so, but it never goes away and can never be controlled.

The EU was designed to overcome nationalism. The best it could do has been to mitigate it. In placing some nations at an economic disadvantage through its central bank and leaving others socially vulnerable by its immigration policies, the EU has not submerged nationalism, but energized it. The EU increases the threat to its own long-term existence every time it tries to extend its authority, institutionally or geographically.

If French support for the EU can no longer be taken for granted, then nothing can be taken for granted.

http://www.stratfor.com
 
U.S. Shifts Strategy on China Currency, From Float to Revaluation

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, May 26 - Even as it publicly pressures China to let its currency rise in value, the Bush administration has quietly softened one of its key demands.

In a calculated shift in tactics, administration officials have stopped demanding that China let it currency, the yuan, float freely against other major currencies. Instead, American officials are telling Chinese leaders that they can keep their policy of a fixed exchange rate if they increase the value of the yuan by 10 to 15 percent.

The policy switch reflects a growing realization that Chinese leaders were simply not going to let their currency soar, which would make their exports more expensive and could disrupt China's troubled banking system.

But the switch also highlights the administration's limited leverage over China. Having failed to budge Chinese leaders with polite financial diplomacy, administration officials are groping for ways to pressure Chinese leaders without resorting to new import barriers.

"I don't think it is in our interest or in their interest in going immediately to a full float," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said at a hearing today at the Senate Banking Committee. "I see them as on a path to a full float."

Mr. Snow refused to say how much he wanted Chinese officials to revalue the yuan. But people briefed on the administration position said officials were privately demanding an immediate increase of 10 to 15 percent.

So far, Chinese officials have shown little inclination to go even that far.

Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee sharply criticized Secretary Snow today for refusing to publicly accuse China of manipulating its currency to gain an unfair trade advantage.

Last week, the Treasury Department warned that China's policy of a fixed peg to the dollar was "highly distortionary," but it stopped short of making a formal accusation that could have led to the retaliatory measures.

"I am frankly astounded the administration continues to report the Chinese peg is not currency manipulation," said Senator Elizabeth Dole, Republican of North Carolina.

The committee chairman, Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, said the administration had chosen to "punt" when it decided two weeks ago not to accuse China of currency manipulation.

Antagonism toward China and its huge trade surplus with the United States, which reached $162 billion last year and is still rising, has reached a fever pitch in Congress.

Mr. Snow, responding to complaints, acknowledged that he was "disappointed" by China's reluctance to change policy, but he predicted that Beijing would announce a change within six months.

"I think we're going to see action by China," Mr. Snow told members of the Senate panel, though he added that he "might have to eat those words" in six months.

For two years, Mr. Snow and his deputies have been trying without success to persuade China to move away from its policy of a fixed exchange rate for the yuan and to adopt "flexible" rates.

The Bush administration has never explicitly said that China needs to let its currency float freely, as is the case for the dollar and the euro, but it has long insisted on floating rates in private talks with Chinese officials.

Morris Goldstein, an economist at the Institute for International Economics, has long urged the administration to switch tactics and demand a dramatic upward revaluation of the yuan because the Chinese would continue to intervene in currency markets even if they said they had let the yuan float.

"This is not an administration that is comfortable relying on market signals," Mr. Goldstein said, referring to the Chinese government. A big revaluation, he said, would amount to a "very large down payment" on what the United States ultimately wants.

Administration officials resisted that idea, in part because they viewed it as contradictory to complain about China's fixed exchange rate and then to demand a new fixed rate.

But they alluded to their new approach last week, when they avoided any talk of floating exchange rates and spoke of a "substantial" change in exchange rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/business/worldbusiness/26cnd-yuan.html
 
Re: EU move to block trade aid for poor

QueEx said:
THE GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT

<font size="4">The European Crisis</font size>

May 24, 2005 19:38 GMT

France will vote on the new draft European constitution May 29. All 25 EU members must ratify the constitution if it is to take effect. The odds of that happening are pretty slim under any circumstances. However, at the moment it appears that the referendum in France might fail. Whether it actually does is less significant than the fact that France is the engine behind European unification -- and if ratification of the constitution in France is in doubt, it is difficult to imagine how it could possibly pass in many other European countries.

<font size="6"><center>French Reject Europe's First Constitution </font size></center>

Sunday May 29, 2005 9:31 PM


AP Photo TOU101

By JOHN LEICESTER

Associated Press Writer


PARIS (AP) - French voters rejected the European Union's first constitution Sunday, early government results showed - a stinging repudiation of the ambitious, decades-long effort to further unite the 25-nation bloc.

With about 83 percent of the votes counted, the referendum was rejected by 57.26 percent of voters, the Interior Ministry said. The treaty was supported by 42.74 percent, the ministry said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5039747,00.html
 
IMF gives uninspiring prognosis for eurozone

IMF gives uninspiring prognosis for eurozone
Wed Aug 3, 9:50 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The International Monetary Fund cut its growth forecasts for the 12-nation eurozone and appealed for decisive political action to revive an arthritic economic performance.

The IMF said Wednesday it now expected the euro area economy to grow by 1.3 percent this year and by 1.9 percent next. The organisation's previous forecasts given in April foresaw growth of 1.6 percent in 2005 and 2.3 percent in 2006.

In an annual review of the eurozone, the IMF board of directors also said that an interest rate cut by the European Central Bank (ECB) might be "appropriate" in the coming months if evidence mounts of a fading recovery.

The 63-page report underlined that what it called a "low-flying recovery" in the eurozone has failed to provide the spark needed to revive growth convincingly or to bring down high unemployment.

The fault for weak corporate and consumer confidence lies largely with a lack of reformist zeal on the part of European governments, the IMF signalled.

"Directors considered that the fundamentals remain in place for the modest recovery to resume in the second half of 2005, but with downside risks continuing to prevail," the review said.

The IMF said that against this background, "directors called for a more decisive and consistent pursuit of forward-looking policies aimed at strengthening fiscal adjustment and structural reform".

The IMF has long said that eurozone nations such as France and Germany need to loosen restrictions on hiring and firing, cut the role of the state and unbundle red tape if Europe is to start catching up with US rates of growth.

Last week, in a similar review of the United States, the IMF predicted the US economy would expand by 3.6 percent this year and by 3.5 percent in 2006.

The direction of reform in the eurozone has been complicated by the failure of EU leaders to agree on a long-term budget at a bitterly divisive summit in June.

The summit came after voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the EU's proposed constitution, laying bare fears among many Europeans that their cherished social welfare protection will be eroded by US-style free markets.

The IMF said that "now more than ever, effective implementation (of reforms) will call for the leadership and determination of both national capitals and the European Council (of EU leaders)".

This was especially true in fiscal policy, as several eurozone governments struggle to keep their deficits under an EU ceiling of 3.0 percent of output.

The IMF said an EU agreement this year to loosen the Stability and Growth Pact, which mandates the deficit ceiling along with other financial requirements on eurozone members, must not lead to budgetary profligacy.

"A transparent, even-handed and sufficiently ambitious implementation of the reformed framework will thus be essential for Europe to address successfully its fiscal policy challenges," the review said.

For some EU governments, weak growth has been exacerbated by the ECB's reluctance to bring down eurozone interest rates, which have been stable since June 2003 and are widely expected to stay so until well into next year.

The IMF said the ECB's monetary policy stance "remains broadly appropriate". But there were hints of discord among board members over whether the ECB has not been too tough.

The report said that "many directors stressed that, absent new information on prices or wages, a cut in interest rates would be appropriate if evidence of a fading recovery continues to accumulate over the coming months".

"Some directors, however, questioned the case for a rate cut, pointing to the upside risks to headline inflation and the predominantly structural nature of the area's sluggish activity."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005080...AqFOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
Re: IMF gives uninspiring prognosis for eurozone

<font size="6"><center>China: The Corruption Problem in Yuan Reform</font size></center>

STRATFOR
Global Intelligence Brief
August 26, 2005

Summary

Chinese officials have taken steps in recent weeks to curb the flow of hot money into the country and mitigate speculation on further yuan valuation changes. Beijing plans to continue additional shifts in the yuan value, with reports that it could seek parity with the Hong Kong dollar before the end of 2005. Although this would further integrate the former British colony and continue to mollify external pressure for a free-floating currency, there are troubles to deal with -- not the least of which is domestic speculation and insider trading by government officials and their associates.

Analysis

As Beijing carefully monitors the effects of its July 21 currency revaluation, officials are taking steps to mitigate the dangers of speculative capital related to future exchange rate adjustments. These include potential plans to encourage foreign investors to keep their money in foreign currency in Chinese banks, rather than exchange them, and to raise the commercial deposit rate for U.S. dollars and Hong Kong dollars.

Beijing faces external and internal currency pressures, and is working toward an initial stepped adjustment of about 5 percent -- which would bring the yuan close to parity with the Hong Kong dollar. This would allow for closer integration of the two currencies and bring Hong Kong another step closer to being fully "Chinese." A 5 percent adjustment, made in several steps, also would keep U.S. pressure at bay, as Beijing would be making clearly seen steps toward a new currency regime.

Beijing has every intention of continuing the minor adjustments in the exchange rate, though it will do so with caution. China's leaders and economic advisers are particularly concerned about speculative capital, the so-called "hot money" that contributed to the Mexican peso crisis and the Thai baht crisis, the latter of which sent all of Asia into economic shock. But perhaps a more difficult problem stems not from outside the country but from within the government itself.

Rumors of a revaluation were circulated widely for months prior to the actual announcement and U.S. officials assured the U.S. Congress that China would adjust its currency rates, but the exact timing and wording of the announcement was kept a closely held secret. Any leak could have triggered widespread speculation -- Beijing already had reported that some $100 billion had been added to the foreign currency reserves in the first half of the year -- most of it believed to be speculative capital. External investors, however, were not the ones to make a profit from the leak.

Hong Kong's Chengming magazine reports that some $28.8 billion was converted into yuan in the 90 minutes between the final decision to change the yuan value and the actual announcement -- a report that, if true, implicates officials at the highest levels in what is effectively an insider-trading scheme to profit off the currency revaluation. That this comes from government officials -- and their associates at various state-owned enterprises -- presents a troubling problem for Beijing.

China's central leadership already has enough trouble keeping local party and government officials in line. Beijing's inability to control local leaders, coupled with a pervasive culture of corruption and nepotism, has left an indelible taint on the government structure that reaches from the lowest levels to the highest. Although Beijing regularly makes examples of officials at many levels, the system of relationships offers protection to the senior cadre and their associates.

Thus Beijing is not only struggling to maintain control and order over the delicate process of economic reforms and currency changes, but it also must contend with elements within its own bureaucratic apparatus that act in ways contravening the goals of the leadership. Personal enrichment undermines the collective good of the state, as it were.

Across the board there have been cases of local and regional officials flaunting Beijing's edicts, from getting out of businesses to redirecting coastal monies to the central and western provinces to offering support for migrant laborers. If a decision as carefully controlled and risky as the first step in yuan reform can lead to rather visible corruption and personal profit on the part of senior party and government officials, the ability of the central government to manage further revaluations, or the broader and more complex economic policies, is clearly in doubt.
 
This is one of the more complex issues facing the US and the world in the next few years. I'm no economist, but from what I've read, it seems that the factors that have kept our economy growing despite the Iraq War - low interest rates and a rising housing market - have been driven by the willingness of the PRC to maintain their investment in T-bills, which allows us to maintain growth in the face of a rapidly mounting budget deficit and current account deficit. (For more reading on the current account deficit and it's implications, check out http://www.stern.nyu.edu/globalmacro/
while the site is still free.)
 
I dont know shit about this complex(to me) stuff, but thanx to the posters I am learning.

What I do think is from a laymans perceptive the US is hurting itself by outsourcing jobs to india and china while not funding education here at home.

We are just turning out to be a consumer nation while these countries are producing.

Thats all I see, I will return and read more of this cause it is very interesting.
 
US will drop trade barriers if others do: Bush

US will drop trade barriers if others do: Bush
1 hour, 5 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush told a U.N. summit on Wednesday that the United States was prepared to drop all trade tariffs, subsidies and other barriers if other nations did the same.

Eliminating trade barriers "could lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the next 15 years," Bush said, calling for a successful conclusion to World Trade Organization talks on trade and development, known as the Doha round of negotiations.

Bush told the gathering of some 150 world leaders at U.N. headquarters that the United States had previously signaled its willingness to eliminate agricultural subsidies and other barriers "to open markets for farmers around the world."

"Today I broaden the challenge by making this pledge: The United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to the free flow of goods and services if other nations do the same," he said.

"This is key to overcoming poverty in the world's poorest nations. It's essential we promote prosperity and opportunity for all nations."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050914...ZtZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
Don’t blame the savers

Don’t blame the savers
Sep 16th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda


Some economists argue that the imbalances in the world economy can be blamed, in part, on a glut of savings from developing countries gushing into American assets. New reports from the IMF and the World Bank say the problem lies elsewhere

AMERICAN conservatives are fond of prescribing personal responsibility as a cure for the financial ills of the poor. There is a certain amount of pleasure, therefore, in seeing America’s fiscal profligacy chided for contributing to the imbalances that currently threaten the health of the world economy. That is precisely the verdict of the newly released chapter on savings and investment in the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook. The document highlights the danger posed by the world economy’s heavy dependence on ravenous American consumers to snap up exports from the rest of the world.

To be sure, it is hard to be too gloomy. Though Europe has been sluggish and the global economy hasn’t quite lived up to last year’s lively pace of growth, world GDP is still growing at an above-average clip. Even Japan, stuck in an economic quagmire for the past decade, has begun looking perky.

But dark clouds have been gathering on the horizon for some time. Emerging-market economies, particularly in Asia, are running high current-account surpluses, keeping their economic fires stoked with a steady stream of exports, especially to America. In mirror image, America’s current-account deficits have soared past 5% of GDP. Household savings have dwindled to negligible levels as Americans have run down assets and taken on debt to keep the spending binge going. Yet if the American consumer falters, as things stand now, the rest of the world will tumble too.

Moreover, economists are increasingly worried that America’s economic health (and by extension the world’s) rests on a housing market that looks decidedly bubbly. When the bubble bursts, they fear, the whole thing could come crashing down.

But if economists are agreed that America’s debt levels are dangerous, they cannot agree on whom to blame. Economists with little time for the Bush administration point the finger at the government’s profligate budget deficits—predicted to be roughly $330 billion in 2005—which run down national savings. The administration’s supporters prefer to point to spendthrift consumers and the frothy housing market, and argue that a “global savings glut” is pouring excess capital from abroad, particularly Asia, into America’s financial markets. This, they say, is why long-term interest rates have remained low even as the Federal Reserve has progressively tightened monetary policy.

America is not the only country where savings have fallen. Worldwide savings began declining in the late 1990s, hitting bottom in 2002. They have recovered only modestly since then. The drop is mainly due to industrial countries, where savings and investment have been on a downward trend since the 1970s, thanks to a sharp decline in personal savings that an increase in corporate savings failed to offset. Savings in emerging markets and oil-producing countries have risen over that period, but not enough to reverse the trend.

So why the sudden talk of a savings glut? And even if there is a surplus, why is it flowing the “wrong way”—from the developing world, where returns on capital should be higher, to more mature economies like America?

The IMF report offers an explanation. What the world is suffering from is not so much a savings glut as an investment deficit, in both rich and poor countries. In emerging markets and oil-exporting nations, still feeling the lingering effects of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, demand for capital has failed to keep up with supply. Scrimping consumers have instead sent their money to the West.

The IMF’s figures suggest that this is not as irrational as it seems. Though in theory returns on capital should be much higher in the developing world, where economies remain labour-intensive, in practice the story is more complicated. Emerging markets saw a return on aggregate capital of 13.3% over the 1994-2003 period, compared with 7.8% in the G7 group of industrialised nations. But investments in emerging markets are riskier, because their economies tend to be more volatile and their institutions weaker.

Moreover, the return on aggregate capital may not be a good guide to the returns that investors can actually expect. Growth could be concentrated in smaller firms that are harder to invest in, for instance, or the data could be unreliable. Indeed, the IMF’s analysis suggests that the internal rate of return on invested capital in publicly traded firms in emerging markets has been very poor over the past decade, even before currency risk is taken into account.

But investment has fallen in the rich world too: the rivers of capital have flowed not directly into businesses but into markets for consumer and government credit, where they are presumably doing little to increase the recipient economy’s ability to repay the loans in the future. That means consumer retrenchment when interest rates rise or the bills come due, which will hurt emerging markets if they do not work harder to generate domestic demand, instead of relying on exports for growth.

A better way to crunch the numbers

So what is the cure? Lower savings rates in emerging markets? That would be a disaster, according to a new report from the World Bank, “Where is the Wealth of Nations?”. Many developing countries, says the Bank, are already saving too little, if you do the figures right.

Traditionally, national saving is calculated as simply national income minus consumption. But this, the Bank argues, ignores important underlying changes in the productive capacity of the society. Should education, for example, be counted as consumption, or as an investment in human capital that will enable the nation to produce more in future years? On the flip side, every dollar earned by selling finite natural resources like oil or diamonds represents an incremental decrease in the country’s ability to generate wealth in coming years. If you account for things like this, says the Bank, a lot of developing countries, especially in Africa and the Middle East, are running down wealth at a fast pace—though in Asia, even with those adjustments, savings rates are still high.

Like the World Bank, the IMF does not think lower savings rates in developing countries are the answer. It identifies several other things that could make a difference: higher national savings in the United States, an investment recovery in Asia, and an increase in real GDP growth in Japan and Europe.

Easy to say, difficult to pull off. Raising interest rates would, the IMF concedes, have only a limited effect on America’s savings rate. Balancing the budget would do more, but there seems to be little political will to tell Americans they must pay for their government programmes. Across the Atlantic, European governments are finding it hard to make the kind of structural reforms that could boost their sluggish growth rates, and the European Central Bank has remained unwilling to provide monetary stimulus by cutting rates. Nor has Japan’s government, despite the signs of fledgling recovery, yet found a formula for boosting its long-term growth rate. It is easier to diagnose the illness than effect a cure.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4400014
 
Leaders told: Fix the economy's gaps as sun shines

Leaders told: Fix the economy's gaps as sun shines
By Stella DawsonSun
Jan 29, 7:21 AM ET

While the sun appears to shine on the world's economy, influential voices at the Davos summit warned its leaders to make essential repairs now in case of storms ahead.

Corporate moguls at the World Economic Forum in this ski resort celebrated buoyant stock markets, big-time corporate takeovers and a rosy growth outlook.

But leading economists and the International Monetary Fund said the world's financial policymakers should not let the widespread optimism blind them to the need to fix basic problems in the way the global economy works.

"We live in a moment where everything is good," IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato said.

"Liquidity is substantial, interest rates are benign, risk premia are benign. But this might give complacency to policymakers, and that certainly is a risk."

Gloomy warnings of a looming dollar crash and world recession to correct the massive U.S. current account deficit were almost absent from this year's gathering of the rich and powerful.

Fur coats were back in fashion and limousines rolled on the snowy streets of the mountain resort.

A slight cooling in U.S. growth, a gradual pickup in Europe and Japan, and China's tweak to its currency regime were hailed as signs that a smooth rebalancing, from a world economy flying solo on the U.S. growth engine, is already underway.

There was a nagging undercurrent that good times can't keep on rolling. But no one was quite sure what would go wrong.

"There is a dangerous degree of complacency, and out of that comes a surprise that does the most damage to the global economy," said Stephen Roach, chief economist of Morgan Stanley.

He suspects the weak link is the over-stretched U.S. consumer, mortgaged to the hilt in a booming housing market. As the U.S. Federal Reserve keeps jacking up interest rates, consumers could slam the brakes on and tip things out of kilter.

Influential hedge fund manager George Soros agreed. "As the housing boom cools off, there will be a shortfall in demand (which will) affect the global economy," he said.

Soros linked this to incoming Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, saying the Fed was bound to tighten too much. "Their last rise will turn out to be too much. I think he will have to do it."

PERFECT STORM?

Some economists worry that if the U.S. economy slumps, then China -- the second engine of the global growth churning out masses of cheap goods and funneling its excess savings into the U.S. markets to finance the $800 billion U.S. deficit -- could slow too much.

A simultaneous slowdown in the United States and China could have a major impact.

Kenneth Rogoff, economics professor at Harvard University and former IMF research director, doubts this scenario.

"I don't see much chance of the 'perfect storm'," he said.

One reason is that consumer and business demand is accelerating in Europe, Japan and in the rest of emerging Asia. They can pick up some of the slack, economists said in Davos.

Energy security is the other looming risk economists cited.

"The demand shock from India and China could turn into a supply shock because the reserve situation is so tight. Plus the geopolitical risks," said Laura Tyson, dean of the London Business School and former White House economic adviser.

Crude oil demand has been rising 8-9 percent a year since 2004. Prices last year hit a record above $70 a barrel. Energy experts at Davos estimated oil output could only be cranked up by another 2-3 percent at most, given current refinery capacity.

So if demand keeps soaring, or if a terrorist attack on oil facilities cuts capacity, a global energy crunch could set in.

REPAIR LIST

Given these risks, economists and policymakers said the best thing to do is to patch up the holes in the way the global economy works so that it is in healthy shape.

First on the list is to raise the U.S. savings rate as the American growth machine slows down, so the U.S. is less reliant on foreign capital to finance its spendthrift ways.

Currently, the U.S. sucks in 70 percent of excess global savings, something that European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet called abnormal. Indian Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said it robbed poor countries of capital they needed to improve their standards of living at home.

Second on the list is more flexibility in the Chinese yuan currency regime. China promises to do this over time as it gradually switches its growth model from factory for the world to domestic demand. That pledge was renewed by China's central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan speaking at Davos.

Third on the list is faster growth in Japan and Europe, which recent data show is already happening.

The fact that none of these problems -- together called global imbalances -- have blown up yet surprised economists.

But Larry Summers, head of Harvard University and former U.S. Treasury Secretary, was not convinced that the danger of major economic disruptions had passed.

Correcting the U.S. current account deficit, for instance, would wipe out about 4.5-5 percent of U.S GDP, or 1.5 percent of world GDP, he said.

He compared the situation to waiting for a bus that never comes. Eventually it comes when people least expect it.

"The situation in the next couple of years will be a complex one and will require rather more policy coordination than we have seen," Summers said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060129...sr.ucsA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
Angst grows over end of 'easy money' policies

Angst grows over end of 'easy money' policies
Thu Mar 9, 9:59 PM ET

Japan's shift away from its ultra-loose monetary policy is the latest in a series of central bank moves creating jitters in financial markets but which may mean a healthier global economy, analysts say.

Markets have recently been roiled by growing concerns about actions by central banks in the United States, Japan and Europe to curb some of the almost-free cash that has been fueling economic growth.

In the US, the yield on the benchmark 10-year bond has jumped nearly half a percentage point to 4.74 percent this week -- the highest in nearly two years -- after reaching a low of 4.33 percent in January.

Many analysts see the 10-year yield climbing above five percent if the Federal Reserve lifts its base rate to that level.

The European Central Bank has hinted after two quarter-point rate hikes that it may not be finished, and the Bank of Japan Thursday ended its policy of flooding the market with liquidity, suggesting a move up from its zero-rate policy.

"The BoJ did warn that the changes would occur over a period of several months and as a result rates are not likely to rise for some time, but the market will take the change in policy as a turning point for Japan," said Jon Gencher, analyst at BMO Nesbitt Burns.

Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, said a jump in interest rates worldwide has serious implications.

"My guess is that this is not good news for what has been a liquidity-driven, increasingly asset-dependent global economy," he said.

Roach said the current environment has seen huge capital inflows to the United States, keeping interest rates low and fueling a boom in consumption of imports from around the world.

"A US consumption shock would be especially worrisome in that regard -- a development that would reverberate quickly into Mexico, China, Asia's China-centric supply chain, and even a China-linked Brazilian economy," Roach said.

Other analysts say central banks are taking a risk in lifting rates in anticipation of stronger growth and inflation.

"Central banks continue to be guided by macroeconomic models that relate to an economy that no longer exists," said CIBC World Markets economists Jeff Rubin and Avery Shenfeld in a report.

By being out of touch, the central banks "could deliver an economic deceleration through interest rate hikes that are simply not necessary," the economists said.

Robert Brusca of FAO Economics said it is unrealistic to expect inflation and interest rates to revert to historic norms. He argues that in the globalized economy, inflation is held in check by outsourcing to low-cost economies like China and India and by new technology.

"We're never going back to normal," he said.

Brusca said the Bank of Japan carefully avoided any commitment to lift rates at any time soon.

"It is clear in the BoJ directive that the Bank intends to move slowly," he said. "There is nothing in this report to suggest that any jarring change is in the works -- quite the opposite."

But those worried about a spike in rates are missing the point, says David DeRosa, adjunct professor of finance at the Yale School of Management.

"The reason why interest rates have been creeping up is that these economies are getting stronger," DeRosa said. "This doesn't mean there are any broad implications (for the rise). These are relatively incremental changes."

Drew Matus, senior economist at Lehman Brothers, said central banks around the world are finally coming out of the stimulative phase following the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks to avert a global recession.

"They are all trying to slow the economy just enough to get a 'Goldilocks' scenario" that is neither too hot nor too cold, said Matus.

But Matus said this task is imprecise, and predicted the Fed will probably "overshoot" by tightening too far because "the cost of overshooting is less than the risk of undershooting."

If the Fed lets inflation get out of control, "they lose credibility" and will have a hard time reining in inflation. But he maintained that this move would probably slow US growth to around 2.8 percent by next year, below the ideal pace of 3.2 percent.

Nonetheless, Matus said financial markets may be rocked by the higher cost of borrowing.

"Everyone is aware the easy money is going away, that that leads people to reassess how they allocate their resources," he said. "It could lead to more volatility."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...afp/economymarketsbankratesjapan_060310025904
 
Europe, Japan relieving US of global growth burden: IMF

Europe, Japan relieving US of global growth burden: IMF
Wed Apr 19, 12:54 PM ET

Economic growth is finally spreading from the United States to other parts of the industrialised world, but yawning global imbalances are storing up trouble further ahead, the IMF revealed.

In its semi-annual World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund predicted growth in global gross domestic product (GDP) of 4.9 percent this year. In its last report, the IMF forecast global growth of 4.3 percent.

For 2007, the IMF sees world growth slowing a touch to 4.7 percent, which is up from the forecast of 4.4 percent given last time.

"Despite higher oil prices and a number of natural disasters, economic activity in the second half of last year and early 2006 was strong, and inflationary pressures remain subdued," the report said.

"The economic expansion has also become more broadly based," it added.

"While the United States is still the main engine of growth among industrial countries, it is increasingly supported by the ongoing expansion in Japan and signs of a sustained recovery in the euro area."

The IMF, however, warned of "downside" risks to global growth from record-high oil prices, rising interest rates and a potential bird flu pandemic.

It also expressed anxiety about the World Trade Organisation's inability to break a deadlock over how to tear down barriers to commerce, and issued a strident warning against resurgent protectionism.

"A failure of the (WTO's) Doha round, though not catastrophic, would be a very important setback," IMF chief economist Raghuram Rajan told a news conference, urging the world community not to abandon globalisation.

"Economic patriotism is protectionist old wine in a mislabelled new bottle, but it is all the more dangerous in an interconnected world," he said.

According to the IMF, the US economy will expand by 3.4 percent this year and 3.3 percent next, thanks to strong industrial output and consumer confidence.

But a cooling housing market and high energy prices are expected to shave a marginal amount off US growth this year, the report said.

"The recovery in Europe appears to be strengthening, notwithstanding some slowdown in growth during the final quarter of 2005," it said.

The 12-nation eurozone was expected to post growth of 2.0 percent in 2006 and 1.9 percent next year. The common currency area remains vulnerable to any downturn in external demand, and to high oil prices.

"Importantly, however, investment appears to have remained resilient," the IMF said.

Growth in Japan, which is emerging from a slump stretching back more than a decade, was seen in the IMF report as coming to 2.5 percent this year before picking up to 2.7 percent in 2007.

The Japanese expansion "remains solidly on track", the report said, helped not just by export growth but by long-awaited recoveries in consumer demand, corporate profits and bank credit.

The rest of Asia is benefiting from sizzling growth rates in China and India, according to the IMF.

China's GDP was seen expanding by 9.5 percent this year and 9.0 percent next, helped by booming investment and export export growth.

"Given the current favorable environment, the authorities have an ideal opportunity to utilize fully the flexibility available following the exchange rate reform last July which should lead to an appreciation of the renminbi (yuan)," the report said.

US manufacturers, and many in Congress, argue that China continues to manipulate its currency to bolster its exports despite a small revaluation last summer.

Mammoth trade surpluses in China and oil exporters drove the US current account deficit to an unprecedented 7.0 percent of GDP in the last quarter of 2005.

That imbalance was identified by the IMF as risking "sizeable negative effects" for world growth going forward.

The deeper it sinks into debt, the more the United States relies on foreign investors to fund its deficit. But the higher the deficit goes, the more anxious investors may become over a potential US crash.

The dollar will have to depreciate over time and China's yuan needs to strengthen to help redress the imbalances, Rajan said. But it is not up to China alone to put the world economy on a more even keel, he said.

"Global imbalances are not going to be solved simply by renminbi revaluation. Let's get that straight," the chief economist said.

"This is a shared responsibility and many countries have to work at this," he said, citing the need for corrective action also by Japan and oil-exporting nations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006041...dWFOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
 
America meets the new superpower

The visit of President Hu to Washington underlines the inevitable loss of America's economic supremacy to China

By Clifford Coonan in Beijing
Published: 19 April 2006

When President Hu Jintao of China shakes hands with President George Bush in Washington tomorrow and gives one of his fixed grins for photographers, it will not be just another meeting between the leader of a large developing country and the chief executive of the richest nation on earth.

China is rising fast and is expected to eclipse the United States economically in the future - its gross domestic product is tipped to overtake that of America by 2045.

While Mr Bush has only given Mr Hu an hour of his time for a state lunch, the global balance of power is changing and in future meetings, the Chinese will set the timetable.

The rise of China is posing awkward questions for the US, along with the realisation that its days as the world's economic superpower are numbered.

Some analysts see America entering a period of "managed decline" not unlike that which Britain has experienced since the end of the Second World War and the end of empire.

Since the Chinese economy began to open up a quarter of a century ago, there are 400 million fewer desperately poor people in China. Now Beijing wants the remarkable domestic growth story to count for something in global terms. China has already overtaken Britain and France to become the world's fourth largest economy and Mr Hu's visit to Washington represents a culture clash on a global scale. China, the emerging Asian superpower, is ruled with an iron fist by the Communist Party, which has transformed a once centrally planned economy into a free market one, "socialist with Chinese characteristics".

What China repeatedly calls its "peaceful rise" represents a major challenge for the US economy, for its political position and for its role as global policeman.

China, with its endless supply of goods and its thirst for energy, has contributed more to global growth than America in recent years, and Beijing is well aware of this. Mr Hu's visit to America is about boosting China's prestige, earning respect for the world's fastest-growing major economy and matching some of that financial muscle with real political influence.

Japan remains the engine of the Asian economy but it is not registering anything like the double-digit growth rates that China is seeing every year. What makes the rise of China different from Japan's post-war emergence is that China can match its economic growth with a strong army. China is no defeated nation, struggling out of the ashes; instead it is a proud country which likes to remind others of its cultural achievements over thousands of years.

More than half of all industrial goods are made in its factories. The production and export of these goods, their prices kept low by Beijing's manipulation of the renminbi currency, has generated the cash behind China's growing economic power.

Mr Hu was all business at the start of his tour. Dinner at Bill Gates' house in Seattle, followed by a café latte with Howard Schultz, chairman of the Starbucks chain of coffee shops, then on to the Boeing plant, before moving to the east coast, with an itinerary that includes a speech at Mr Bush's alma mater, Yale.

But this opening has been undermined before Mr Hu even arrives. The Chinese leader is being given full military honours on arrival but Mr Hu's journey is not being labelled an official "state visit" as such, but something further down the chain.

Face matters in Asia, and some are reading this as a loss of face for Mr Hu. A dangerous move perhaps, given the shape of things to come. For the Bush administration, the key issue is a huge trade imbalance which is turning ever more political. Cheap Chinese exports are flooding the US market and costing American jobs.

And it is ideological too. China is not a democracy, its attitude on human rights leaves a lot to be desired and the Communist Party's treatment of organised religions angers the devoutly Christian Mr Bush. The feeling in Washington is that Beijing needs to do more to stave off the nuclear threat of North Korea and Iran, while China's courting of oil-rich, but politically suspect, countries in Africa and central Asia also rankles. A mixed bag of complaints, and the perceived absence of a clear line on China has angered some US lawmakers. The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, said that Mr Bush "still has no coherent strategy for managing this nation's relationship with China".

The war in Iraq or Iran's nuclear ambitions are side issues compared with the question about China's "peaceful rise" and what to do when it decides to flex its muscles. Keen to keep the spin positive, senior Chinese foreign affairs officials said Mr Hu's visit would "provide an opportunity for Americans to better understand China's policy of seeking sustainable development and peaceful growth".

The trip will also introduce Mr Hu to the world. He remains a bit of a mystery three years into his leadership and little is known about his personal life, beyond the fact that he is frugal with money, likes ballroom dancing and has a photographic memory. When Mr Bush came to China in November, the two leaders reportedly spoke quite frankly to each other but relations could hardly be described as warm.

In the run-up to Mr Hu's visit, the Chinese released a number of key political prisoners; offered an olive branch to Taiwan, albeit one that Taipei cannot accept; signalled better relations with the Vatican and offered hope that the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama, may visit China.

Rise of an eastern superpower

POPULATION
* 1.3 billion

ECONOMICS
* World's fastest growing economy
* Economy has grown 9.5 per cent annually for 25 years
* GDP quadrupled from 1980 to 2000
* 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty in 25 years

TRADE
* 30th largest US trading partner in 1977; now third
* World's second largest recipient of foreign direct investment

* US exports have grown five times faster than to rest of the world. US corporations have invested more than $50bn in China

* Worker earns 5-10 per cent of an American worker's wage

* 2004: Produced half of all digital cameras and 60 per cent of microwaves, photocopiers and DVD players in the world

POLLUTION
* Has 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities
* Half of the population has polluted water supply
* Produces 3.7 billion tons of sewage a day

* World's largest consumer of coal; second only to US for oil

MILITARY
* 2005: China says it spent $30bn on its military, the Pentagon says $90bn was spent
* 2000: Estimated size is 2.5 million personnel; 10,000 tanks; 400 nuclear warheads

HEALTH
* 2003: UN estimates 840,000 have HIV

* 17 per cent of people live on less than a $1 a day

* One-third of the world's cigarettes are smoked in China

When President Hu Jintao of China shakes hands with President George Bush in Washington tomorrow and gives one of his fixed grins for photographers, it will not be just another meeting between the leader of a large developing country and the chief executive of the richest nation on earth.

RELATED STORY: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update45.htm
 
IMF wins new powers to police global economy

IMF wins new powers to police global economy
By Lesley Wroughton and Sumeet Desai
Sat Apr 22, 7:46 PM ET

The International Monetary Fund won new powers to police the world economy after its 184 member countries endorsed a new framework to monitor how the economic policies of one country affects others.

The countries, represented by finance ministers or central bank governors, also agreed that some emerging economies needed more say in IMF decision-making that could lead to a proposal for ad hoc increases in their voting shares by the next IMF gathering in September.

"We resolve to make the IMF more fit for purpose in a global economy and more able to address challenges that are quite different from those of 1945, when the IMF was created," Britain's finance minister, Gordon Brown, who also chairs the IMF's policy-setting committee, told a news conference.

"The IMF should be more able to address global questions with multilateral surveillance," Brown said.

The International Monetary and Financial Committee, or IMFC, said IMF surveillance would focus on spillovers and links between countries' economic policies and reaffirm their monetary, fiscal and exchange-rates frameworks.

IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato will have the authority to bring nations together on an ad hoc basis to thrash out any economic misalignments based on IMF analyses.

Officials said this would create a new forum that better reflected the rise of Asia in the global economy and could possibly replace bodies like the Group of Seven industrial countries, which some say can no longer call all the shots.

One of the problems facing the G7 is that major economic players like China are not part of the club, even though it is the fourth-largest economy in the world.

PRESSURE ON CHINA

The United States has pressured the IMF to broaden its surveillance to include the exchange rates of emerging countries, as Washington also pushes Beijing to loosen its tightly managed currency.

The IMF made the case that such a move was also critical to coordinating economic policies and preventing the unruly unwinding of huge global imbalances in trade and investment flows that could spark a world recession.

Member countries welcomed efforts to enhance monitoring of exchange rates but most said they were hesitant about the IMF publishing analyses on the theoretical fair value of currency rates because it was market sensitive.

China, however, said this did not mean the IMF should interfere in how countries manage their exchange rates.

"Fund surveillance should comply with the objective of promoting exchange and financial stability and respect the autonomy as to exchange rate systems that is granted to all (IMF) members," China's Governor Zhou Xiaochuan told the IMF committee.

In addition, Japanese Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki, said rebalancing the global economy not only had to do with more Asian currency flexibility.

"I believe what is paramount now for each member country and region is to implement steadily the policy measures needed to strengthen its respective economic fundamentals, which would contribute to resolving global imbalances in a smooth and orderly manner while maintaining sustainable growth." he said.

STRONGER VOICE

Addressing reporters, the IMF's Rato said the committee gave him a clear mandate to propose changes to the voting shares, or quotas, of some countries by September.

"I have spoken several times about the need for increases in voting power for some countries, including a number of emerging market economies, to ensure they have a role in the fund's decision-making process that accords with their increased importance in the world economy," he said.

An IMF proposal already circulated among members would give ad hoc increases to a small number of countries like China, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey. Other nations that could also possibly qualify include Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore.

But tensions remain between industrial and developing countries over how to reallocate voting power beyond initial increases in the quotas for some emerging nations.

The Group of 24 finance ministers for developing countries from Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America on Friday called for a more comprehensive package with timelines to greater representation, fearing changes could stall after any initial increases.

They said it was "imperative" that a concrete proposal is worked out by the September meeting, which should also include a new formula to calculate quotas based on purchasing power parity of a country and not gross domestic product as is currently the case.

U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Saturday he would support the ad hoc increase "if it is credibly linked as a down payment on near-term fundamental reform," like those to increase the fund's watchdog role on currency issues.

Although it is generally recognized that China's quotas do not properly reflect its global economic weight, an increase in its voting share may be controversial in light of proposed U.S. legislation threatening a veto of such a move in the absence of Chinese currency reforms.

German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck called for "equal treatment," saying some European countries -- like Germany -- were also underrepresented in their quotas. Countries like Ireland and Spain are also considered underrepresented.

"We all agreed to focus on countries which were clearly underrepresented," French Finance Minister Thierry Breton told a news conference, also pointing to the need to give countries in Africa a stronger voice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060422...8JZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
 
World Bank: Sub-Sahara Africa Sees Growth

World Bank: Sub-Sahara Africa Sees Growth
By HARRY DUNPHY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Apr 22, 3:50 PM ET

Long lagging behind other regions of the world, sub-Sahara Africa is showing economic growth that could lift thousands of people out of poverty, the World Bank reported Saturday.

Growth in the 48-country region hit 4.8 percent in 2004, exceeding the global growth rate of 4.1 percent that year, the last year covered in the institution's latest "World Development Indicators" report.

The trend is expected to continue this year as many African countries pursue sound economic policies, develop a good investment climate, battle corruption and use aid more effectively, according to the bank.

The boost of growth in Africa is important, Francois Bourguignon, the bank's chief economist, said at a news conference. Africa should build on it to keep closing the gap with the rest of the world, he said.

East Asia and the Pacific, which has grown at an average rate of 8 percent a year for the last 20 years, remained the top performer among the regions in 2004, with China achieving a growth rate of 10.1 percent, the survey said.

Growth in South Asia, which includes the robust Indian economy, has averaged 5.8 percent a year over four years ending in 2004, when it reached 6.7 percent.

Latin America and the Caribbean has the highest gross national income per capita of all developing country regions but the lowest growth rate, 2.1 percent, over the period 1995-2004.

Twenty of sub-Sahara Africa's 48 countries grew by more than 5 percent in 2004, the survey said. The recent surge in oil exports and the boom in oil prices have helped, pushing up growth rates among oil producers.

Fifteen non-oil producing countries have had a median growth rate of 5.3 percent since 1995, demonstrating potential for long-term growth, the survey said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...=1&u=/ap/20060422/ap_on_bi_ge/global_growth_1
 
Euro surge threatens eurozone but helps global imbalances

Euro surge threatens eurozone but helps global imbalances
Sun May 7, 3:13 AM ET

The euro has risen strongly against the dollar recently, posing a threat to the early stages of economic recovery in Europe but acting as a correction to global financial imbalances.

On Thursday, the single currency rose to its highest point for nearly 12 months at 1.2724 dollars in response to a scarcely veiled signal from European Central Bank governor Jean-Claude Trichet that eurozone interest rates will rise in June.

And Trichet, in remarks following a decision by the ECB on Thursday to hold its key rate at 2.50 percent, was judged by analysts to have shown little concern about the rise of the euro, which has gained nearly 5.0 percent against the dollar since the middle of April.

Trichet's apparent indifference to the effects of the rise of the single currency has strengthened the view of many economists that leading figures in the world of finance had agreed on a concerted and progressive fall of the dollar when G7 finance ministers met in Washington on April 22.

The dollar has fallen against all leading currencies, except the yuan.

Some experts described the G7 meeting as a lightweight version of the "Plaza accord", a reference to a landmark agreement in 1987 when the seven leading industrialised countries agreed on a fall of the dollar.

In April, the G7 countries and the International Monetary Fund surprised the markets by suddenly putting national current account balances, which are in deeply imbalanced in global terms, in the spotlight since they had been given little attention for more than a year.

The participants at the G7 meeting stressed in an annexe to their final statement that "global imbalances are the product of a wide array of macroeconomic and microeconomic forces throughout the world economy".

They said that in the United States action was required to boost savings, and that in Europe and Japan structural reforms were necessary.

"In emerging Asia, particularly China, greater flexibility in exchange rates is critical to allow necessary appreciations."

The implicit intention was to prevent the huge US deficit on the current account balance of payments, essentially through transfers with Asia, from resulting eventually in a dollar crash which would cause disruption throughout the world economy.

A steady fall of the dollar, by increasing the price of imported consumer goods, would help the United States to bring its trade account back into balance. In 2005, US trade showed a deficit of 726.0 billion dollars, of which 201.6 billion dollars arose from trade with China alone.

A strategist at HSBC France bank, Paul Douaihy, commented: "The G7 wants to avoid a crash of the dollar which might follow the end of the (cycle) of increases in key interest rates in the United States."

Some analysts think that the cycle of US rate rises is coming to an end, and also that growth of the US economy might slow down towards the end of this year.

These two factors together could weaken support for the dollar and set in motion a sharp fall.

Douaihy commented that the G7 wanted to give the impression that it was dealing with this prospect, and was therefore urging each region of the world to play a part: the United States by saving more, Europe and Japan by pushing ahead with structural reforms, and China by allowing greater floating flexibility for the yuan, which is linked to the dollar, to rise.

For the eurozone, which appears at last to be recovering from a weak period lasting several years, the rise of the euro is not necessarily good news: although it helps contain the rise of the dollar price of oil, it also tends to increase the price of eurozone exports.

There seems to be little concern so far in Europe about the rise of the single currency. However, the European aerospace group EADS warned on Thursday that the recent fall of the dollar would reduce its profits for 2006 by 860 million euros (1.09 billion dollars).

The problem of global imbalances does not appear to have been at the centre of talks beteewen eurozone finance ministers meeting in the Eurogroup late on Thursday.

Official data for eurozone growth are to be published on Thursday and economists expect these to show a vigorous performance of 0.6 percent from output in the last quarter of last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...p/forexeuropeeurozoneeconomyeuro_060507041016
 
Re: Euro surge threatens eurozone but helps global imbalances

<font size="5"><center>Emerging Nations Powering Global Economic Boom</font size>
<font size="4">The expansion is the strongest since the 1970s,
with China, India and Russia setting the pace.
But many U.S. workers are left behind.</font size></center>

Los Angeles Times
By Tom Petruno, Times Staff Writer
May 14, 2006


The global economy is on a growth streak that is shaping up to be the broadest and strongest expansion in more than three decades.

Rising spending and investment by consumers and businesses worldwide are boosting national economies on every continent, pushing down unemployment rates in many countries and lifting business earnings and confidence.

Of 60 nations tracked by investment firm Bridgewater Associates, not one is in recession — the first time that has been true since 1969.

Yet this is a different kind of boom from any other in the post-World War II era, analysts say. The soaring economies of China, India, Russia, Brazil and other emerging nations increasingly are setting the pace, overshadowing the slower growth of the United States, Europe and Japan, where the benefits of the expansion have eluded many workers.

"This is the first recovery where developing economies are playing a dominant role," said James Paulsen, chief strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis, which manages money for big investors such as pension funds.

The trend is being driven by free trade, which has created millions of jobs in emerging nations in recent years, fueling stunning new wealth in those countries.

China's meteoric rise has been well-documented, but the boom has spread far and wide to include much of the rest of Asia, as well as Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa.

With commodity exports and tourism surging, the South African economy grew about 5% last year, adjusted for inflation. That was nearly four times the average growth rate of the major European countries.

The township of Soweto in South Africa, once on the front line in the anti-apartheid struggle, today is the scene of a more subtle revolution: the transformation into an upwardly mobile, black middle-class neighborhood where wine tastings and car shows are regular events and where a 700,000-square-foot mall is under construction.

"Business is good," says retired teacher Lolo Mabitsela, 69, who runs a thriving Soweto bed-and-breakfast. Foreign tourists and white South Africans who once avoided Soweto now book rooms at her inn, she says.

In India, economic deregulation and a fast-growing technology service sector are powering consumer demand.

College teacher Rakhi Maral notes that local stores in her city of New Delhi now stock expensive imported perfumes that in years past could be found only at duty-free shops.

"People are being paid better, hence the buying capacity is more," she says.

For Russia, the global hunger for energy and other raw materials has created a financial windfall. The country has become the world's largest exporter of natural gas and second-largest exporter of oil, as well as a major supplier of metals, timber and other resources.

Wealth from those exports now is filtering down to drive growth in the country's retail and consumer goods sectors, said Al Breach, chief economist at investment bank Brunswick UBS in Moscow.

"Culturally, you always had a middle class here, but it was extremely poor," Breach said. "Now, increasingly, that class is getting money, especially the younger generation."

The simplest yardstick of economic success is a country's growth in real gross domestic product, or how fast its total output of goods and services is rising after inflation. For the developing world, that growth is expected to be 6.9% this year — more than double the 3% pace of the developed world, according to the International Monetary Fund.

By contrast, in 1999, emerging economies grew 3.8%, relatively close to the 3.2% rate of developed nations.

The breakaway growth of the developing world is why the global economy overall is on track to post its fourth straight year of 4%-plus expansion, the IMF estimates. The last such streak was in the early 1970s.

With the developed world's growth lagging well behind that of emerging economies, however, workers in industrialized nations may not feel like they are part of the global boom. Wages in the United States, for example, have been slow to rise in recent years. In Western Europe, unemployment rates remain stubbornly high.

The U.S. and other countries in the developed world have lost jobs to emerging nations as a result of free trade, triggering protectionist sentiment here and in Europe.

Also, zooming prices for oil and other commodities, which have enriched the developing nations that export them, have come largely at the expense of the West.

"We can't really see an improvement in living standards for a large segment of the population" in industrialized nations, said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington.

There is no question that some of the developing world's gains are, in effect, a transfer of wealth from the industrialized world, but experts say emerging countries' success also is flowing back to the U.S., Europe and Japan — which combined still account for about two-thirds of the global economy.

The strength of the emerging economies could mean that this global expansion cycle will last longer than normal, as more people join the ranks of the consumer society. That could be good news for aging industrialized nations as well.

U.S. corporations, for example, are selling more abroad than ever before. American exports hit a record $115 billion in March. Companies in the blue-chip Standard & Poor's 500 index derived 32% of their sales from outside the U.S. last year, brokerage Lehman Bros. calculates.

"A new 'Mall of America' is being created in these smaller, younger-demographic, emerging economies," Wells Capital's Paulsen said.

Average Americans also have profited from the global expansion by investing heavily in foreign stock markets, many of which have dramatically outperformed the U.S. market the last three years. Americans bought a net $105 billion of foreign stock funds last year, compared with $31 billion of U.S. funds.

What's more, low-cost goods from developing nations have helped keep inflation pressures muted despite the jump in oil prices, economists say.

"A lot of people are benefiting from globalization and they don't know it," said Paul Kasriel, economist at Northern Trust Co. in Chicago. "If you're buying things at lower prices and you still have your job, you're benefiting."

Global demand for Japanese exports has helped pull that nation out of a 15-year funk. Cheered by reviving domestic spending, the Bank of Japan has said it expects to begin slowly raising short-term interest rates from the current near-zero levels.

Global growth also has kept Germany at the top of the list of world exporters. The nation last year exported goods worth nearly $1 trillion, a record for any country. That kept German economic growth positive by offsetting weak domestic consumption.

Last month, a regular survey of 7,000 German businesses indicated that their confidence level in the economy was the highest since the poll began in 1991. The German stock market last week hit a five-year high.

But many German workers may have a hard time identifying with the global boom. The nation's unemployment rate is 11.5%, compared with 4.7% in the U.S. Germany and the rest of Western Europe have seen jobs migrate to lower-cost labor in Eastern Europe.

Even in developing countries where the boom is centered, prosperity isn't evenly distributed.

In South America, many economists have criticized the lack of chorrea, or trickle-down, from the wealth explosion fueled by the continent's exports of oil, soybeans, copper and other raw materials.

The poverty level in Peru, for example, still tops 50%, and popular dissatisfaction has boosted the upstart presidential candidacy of Ollanta Humala, a nationalist ex-army officer who has pledged to renegotiate contracts with mining firms and other multinational companies in Peru.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, an ally of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, shocked the world this month by nationalizing Bolivia's energy businesses in the name of halting what he said was the pillaging of South American resources by foreigners.

The potential for a mounting backlash against globalization, in both the developing and developed worlds, is one big risk to the economic boom. In the U.S., protectionist voices are rising in Congress, where some want to slap new tariffs on Chinese goods.

As U.S. consumers have continued to spend on imports, driving the U.S. trade deficit to unprecedented levels, some analysts have warned of a false prosperity. The deficit means the nation is going deeper into debt to sustain consumption.

"This trade deficit is financing a standard of living we really can't afford," said Byron Wien, investment strategist at Pequot Capital Management in New York.

Yet some analysts say the greater risk to the boom is that it will sow the seeds of its own demise by fostering rising inflation and interest rates.

Emerging nations have benefited from the low interest rates that prevailed in the developed world in recent years, as policymakers in the U.S., Europe and Japan sought to keep their economies out of recession. Those low rates kept the cost of money down worldwide and served as a "steroid injection" for the developing world, said Michael Darda, economist at investment firm MKM Partners in Greenwich, Conn.

But growing inflation pressures, stemming in part from higher energy costs, are putting upward pressure on interest rates. And that is raising questions about how long the global economic boom can last.

Stock markets worldwide tumbled late last week on those fears after the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark short-term rate for the 16th time since mid-2004 and left open the possibility of more increases. Rates also have been rising in Europe, Canada and China this year.

Typically, policymakers seek to push up rates when they want to cool the economy and inflation. The perennial risk is that they will go too far and turn a boom into a bust — a recession that could trigger collapses of commodity prices and stock markets.

Kasriel, the Northern Trust economist, believes that the U.S. will fall into recession by year's end if the Fed continues to tighten credit.

"If the global economy is going to weaken, it's going to be because of the U.S. consumer," he said.

That would pose a major challenge for China and other export-dependent developing nations: Could they cope with a temporary drop in demand from U.S. consumers by encouraging more consumption at home or among other emerging-market trading partners?

The future of the global boom increasingly may depend on consumers like Huang Qingqi, a 43-year-old taxi driver for a five-star hotel in the Xiangtan area of Hunan province, where Mao Tse-tung was born.

"These days people are visiting hotels, karaoke bars and having dinner out," says the mustachioed Huang. "More are taking taxis. Before they preferred buses."

Huang's income has tripled in two years to about $375 a month, he says. For his family, that has meant more consumption — wooden floors for their 850-square-foot apartment, two new TV sets and a new refrigerator.

Also, Huang said, "These days if guests come to our house, we don't bother to cook. We take them out."

Among Huang's customers are some of the thousands of workers at Xiangtan Steel, which has been thundering with activity to supply materials for China's new cars, railroad lines and countless products that are churning out of the nation's factories.

Wells Capital's Paulsen says the underlying strength of emerging economies makes him optimistic about the global boom. He views the massive U.S. trade deficit that has built up over the last decade as a modern "Marshall Plan" for developing economies.

Like the post-World War II Marshall Plan in Europe, by which the U.S. jump-started the rebuilding of the continent's economy, the U.S. trade deficit has gotten the developing world on its feet and able to take on sustained leadership in supporting global economic growth, Paulsen says.

"I think we're just starting to reap the benefits of that investment," he says.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributing to this report were Times staff writers Shankhadeep Choudhury in New Delhi; Robyn Dixon in Johannesburg, South Africa; Chris Kraul in Bogota, Colombia; Don Lee in Xiangtan, China; Patrick McDonnell and Andrés D'Alessandro in Buenos Aires; Christian Retzlaff in Berlin; and Natasha Yefimova in Moscow. Special correspondent Elizabeth Love in Johannesburg also contributed.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boom14may14,0,7776835.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines
 
African Americans and the Global Economy

African Americans and the Global Economy

News & Notes with Ed Gordon, March 15, 2006 · Two international business experts discuss how African Americans can be more involved in global diversity. Ed Gordon speaks with Virginia Clarke, head of Spencer Stuart's Global Diversity Practice in Chicago and Dwight Ellis, president and CEO of Dwight Ellis and Associates. 11 min 22 sec

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5281344
 
How Long Will America Lead the World?

How Long Will America Lead the World?
The United States is still the dominant force in technology, innovation, productivity and profits. But Americans don't quite realize how fast the rest of the world is catching up.
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
June 12, 2006 issue

Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, held in London on June 22, 1897, was one of the grandest fetes the world has ever seen: 46,000 troops and 11 colonial prime ministers arrived from the four corners of the earth to pay homage to their sovereign. The event was as much a celebration of Victoria's 60 years on the throne as it was of Britain's superpower status. In 1897, Queen Victoria ruled over a quarter of the world's population and a fifth of its territory, all connected by the latest marvel of British technology, the telegraph, and patrolled by the Royal Navy, which was larger than the next two navies put together. "The world took note," says the historian Karl Meyer. The New York Times gushed: "We are a part ... of the Greater Britain which seems so plainly destined to dominate this planet'."

An 8-year-old boy, Arnold Toynbee, who became a great historian, watched the parade while sitting on his uncle's shoulders. "I remember the atmosphere," he later wrote. "It was: well, here we are on the top of the world, and we have arrived at this peak to stay there—forever! There is, of course, a thing called history, but history is something unpleasant that happens to other people."

Well, Americans have replaced Britons atop the world, and we are now worried that history is happening to us. History has arrived in the form of "Three Billion New Capitalists," as Clyde Prestowitz's recent book puts it, people from countries like China, India and the former Soviet Union, which all once scorned the global market economy but are now enthusiastic and increasingly sophisticated participants in it. They are poorer, hungrier and in some cases well trained, and will inevitably compete with Americans and America for a slice of the pie. A Goldman Sachs study concludes that by 2045, China will be the largest economy in the world, replacing the United States.

It is not just writers like Prestowitz who are sounding alarms. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, reflects on the growing competence and cost advantage of countries like China and even Mexico and says, "It's unclear how many manufacturers will choose to keep their businesses in the United States." Intel's Andy Grove is more blunt. "America ... [is going] down the tubes," he says, "and the worst part is nobody knows it. They're all in denial, patting themselves on the back, as the Titanic heads for the iceberg full speed ahead."

Much of the concern centers on the erosion of science and technology in the U.S., particularly in education. Eight months ago, the national academies of sciences, engineering and medicine came together to put out a report that argued that the "scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many nations are gathering strength." President Bush has also jumped onto the competitiveness issue and recently proposed increases in funding certain science programs. (He has not, however, reversed a steady decline in funding for biomedical sciences.) Some speak of these new challenges with an air of fatalism. The national academies' report points out that China and India combined graduate 950,000 engineers every year, compared with 70,000 in America; that for the cost of one chemist or engineer in the U.S. a company could hire five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India; that of the 120 $1 billion-plus chemical plants being built around the world one is in the United States and 50 are in China.

There are some who see the decline of science and technology as part of a larger cultural decay. A country that once adhered to a Puritan ethic of delayed gratification has become one that revels in instant pleasures. We're losing interest in the basics—math, manufacturing, hard work, savings—and becoming a postindustrial society that specializes in consumption and leisure. "More people will graduate in the United States in 2006 with sports-exercise degrees than electrical-engineering degrees," says Immelt. "So, if we want to be the massage capital of the world, we're well on our way."


There is a puzzle in all this, however, which is that these trends and features have been around for a while, and they do not seem to have had an impact—so far at least—on the bottom line, which is GDP growth. Over the past 20 years, America's growth rate has averaged just over 3 percent, a full percentage point higher than that of Germany and France. (Japan averaged 2.3 percent over the same period.) Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, again a full percentage point higher than the European average. In 1980, the United States made up 22 percent of world output; today that has risen to 29 percent. The U.S. is currently ranked the second most competitive economy in the world (by the World Economic Forum), and is first in technology and innovation, first in technological readiness, first in company spending for research and technology and first in the quality of its research institutions. China does not come within 30 countries of the U.S. on any of these points, and India breaks the top 10 on only one count: the availability of scientists and engineers. In virtually every sector that advanced industrial countries participate in, U.S. firms lead the world in productivity and profits.

The situation with regard to higher education is even more dramatic. A new report, "The Future of European Universities," from the London-based Center for European Reform, points out that of the world's 20 top universities, 18 are American. The U.S. invests 2.6 percent of its GDP on higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 percent in Japan. The situation in the sciences is particularly striking. A list of where the world's 1,000 best computer scientists were educated shows that the top 10 schools were all American. Our spending on R&D remains higher than Europe's, and our collaborations between business and educational institutions are unmatched anywhere in the world. America remains by far the most attractive destination for students, taking 30 percent of the total number of foreign students globally. These advantages will not be erased easily because the structure of European and Japanese universities—mostly state-run bureaucracies—is unlikely to change. And while China and India are creating new institutions, it is not that easy to create a world-class university out of whole cloth in a few decades.

The American economy is also particularly good at taking technology and turning it into a product that people will buy. An unusual combination of an entrepreneurial culture, a permissive legal system and flexible capital markets all contribute to a business culture that rewards risk. This means that technology is quickly converted into some profitable application. All the advanced industrial countries had access to the Web, but Google and the iPod were invented in America. It is this skill, as much as raw technological brain power, that has distinguished the American economy from its competitors'.

And then there are the demographics. The United States is the only industrialized country that will not experience a work-force or population loss in the coming decades, thanks to immigration. Germany and Japan are expected to see their populations drop by 5 and 12 percent, respectively, between now and 2050. China will also face a demographic crunch. By 2040, it will have a larger percentage of elderly people than the United States. The one-child policy has led to something that China's demographers call the "4-2-1 problem"— four grandparents and two parents will have to be supported by one worker.

The United States' share of the global economy has been remarkably steady through wars, depressions and a slew of rising powers. It was 32 percent in 1913, 26 percent in 1960, 22 percent in 1980 and 27 percent in 2000. With the brief exception of the late 1940s and 1950s—when the rest of the industrialized world had been destroyed—the United States has taken up about a quarter of world output for about 120 years and is likely to stay in roughly the same position for the next few decades if it can adapt to the current challenges it faces as well as it adapted to those in the past.

Don't get me wrong. Today's challenges are real and daunting. The world economy is more open to competitors than it has ever been. Countries around the globe are taking advantage of this new access, or to put it another way, the natives are getting good at capitalism. Technologies like broadband Internet, fiber-optic cable (which means cheap phone calls) and deregulated air travel have made it possible for people from Costa Rica, South Africa and Thailand to compete with Americans for their jobs. And China and India are different from all previous competition because their sheer size—2.3 billion people!—means that they have an almost limitless supply of low-skilled labor on the one hand and a fairly large group of highly skilled workers on the other, both extremely cheap by Western standards. No worker from a rich country will ever be able to equal the energy and ambition of people making $5 a day and trying desperately to move out of poverty.


So what should the United States do? What has it done in the past? First, be scared, be very scared. The United States has a history of worrying that it is losing its edge. This is at least the fourth wave of such concerns since 1945. The first was in the late 1950s, produced by the Soviet Union's launch of the Sputnik satellite. The second was during the early 1970s, when high oil prices and slow growth in the U.S. convinced Americans that Western Europe and Saudi Arabia were the powers of the future and President Nixon heralded the advent of a multipolar world. The most recent one was in the mid-1980s, when most experts believed that Japan would be the technologically and economically dominant superpower of the future. The concerns in each one these cases was well founded, the projections intelligent. But the reason that none of these scenarios came to pass is that the American system—flexible, resourceful and resilient—moved quickly to correct its mistakes and refocus its attention. Concerns about American decline ended up preventing it. As Andy Grove puts it, "Only the paranoid survive."

America's problem right now is that it is not really that scared. There is an intelligent debate about these issues among corporate executives, writers and the thin sliver of the public than is informed on these issues. But mainstream America is still unconcerned. Partly this is because these trends are operating at an early stage and somewhat under the surface. Americans do not really know how fast the rest of the world is catching up. We don't quite believe that most of the industrialized world—and a good part of the nonindustrialized world as well—has better cell-phone systems than we do. We would be horrified to learn that many have better and cheaper broadband—even France. We are told by our politicians that we have the best health-care system in the world, despite strong evidence to the contrary. We ignore the fact that a third of our public schools are totally dysfunctional because it doesn't affect our children. We boast that our capital markets are the world's finest even though of the 25 largest stock offerings (IPOs) made last year, only one was held in America. It is not an exaggeration to say that over the past five years, because of bad American policies, London is replacing New York as the world's financial capital.

The best evidence of this lack of fear is that no one is willing to talk about any kind of serious solutions that impose any pain on society. Politicians talk a great deal about competitiveness and propose new programs and initiatives. But the proposals are small potatoes compared with, say, farm subsidies, and no one would ever suggest trimming the latter to dramatically increase spending on the sciences. The great competitive problems that the American economy faces would require strong and sometimes unpleasant medicine. Our entitlement programs are set to bankrupt the country, the health-care system is an expensive time bomb, our savings rate is zero, we are borrowing 80 percent of the world's savings and our national bill for litigation is now larger than for research and development. None of these problems is a deep-seated cultural mark of decay. They are products of government policy. Different policies could easily correct them. But taking such steps means doing something that is hard and unpopular.

The genius of America's success is that the United States is a rich country with many of the attributes of a scrappy, developing society. It is open, flexible and adventurous, often unmindful of history and tradition. Its people work hard, putting in longer hours than those in other rich countries. Much of this has do to with the history and culture of the society. A huge amount of it has to do with immigration, which keeps America constantly renewed by streams of hardworking people, desperate to succeed. Science laboratories in America are more than half filled with foreign students and immigrants. Without them, America's leadership position in the sciences would collapse. That is why America, alone among industrial nations, has been able to do the nearly impossible: renew its power and stay at the top of the game for a century now. We can expand our science programs—and we should—but we will never be able to compete with India and China in the production of engineers. No matter what we do, they will have more, and cheaper, labor. What we can do is take the best features of the America system—openness, innovation, immigration and flexibility—and enhance them, so that they can respond to new challenges by creating new industries, new technologies and new jobs, as we have in the past.

Our greatest danger is that when the American public does begin to get scared, they will try to shut down the very features of the country that have made it so successful. They will want to shut out foreign companies, be less welcoming to immigrants and close themselves off from competition and collaboration. Over the past year there have already been growing paranoia on all these fronts. If we go down this path, we will remain a rich country and a stable one. We will be less troubled by the jarring changes that the new world is pushing forward. But like Britain after Queen Victoria's reign, it will be a future of slow, steady national decline. History will happen to us after all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13123358/site/newsweek/
 
Back
Top