Posts tagged ‘trade’

Welcome to hell of protectionism in 2009

What really scares economists about the present crisis? That despite spending more than 11 trillion dollars (including guarantees) by governments and central banks the crisis will spiral into global recession and deflation. One very effective way to trigger global recession is trade protectionism, when countries trying to protect their troubled industries impose import duty or non-tariff barriers on offshore producers. When one country does this then other countries follow with retaliation and trade collapses, more jobs are lost which  leads to recession. We have seen this happening in 1930s.

See chart below (thanks go to David Wheelock from Fed St.Louis), which shows monthly value of imports in 75 countries between 1929 and 1933. Trade implosions happen, you have been warned.

protectionism_1930s.png

Related posts


FAO reports add to agflation worries

I have been following with a rising concern the news about rising food prices. Two recent reports from FAO (www.fao.org) show that despite relatively high crops prices of foodstuffs remain very high (with the exception of sugar). Reports state that volatility of prices has been very high and very persistent, and that there is a growing codependence between the markets. While the forecasts for crops in 2008 remain optimistic, extremely low inventories in many countries and rising freight costs do not bode well for next year outlook. Rising demand from emerging markets and biofuel-related demand is a long-term structural factor. Natural disasters as reported by EM-DAT (www.em-dat.net) are also rising sharply (owing partly to global warming), which indicates that supply disruptions may hit world foodstuffs supply more often that in the past. High food prices will certainly lead to more output in the medium term, but it seems increasingly likely that food inflation may be a more lasting phenomenon that in the past. This may lead to a global “cappuccino effect”, which means that perceived inflation may rise even faster. Food products are bought on daily basis, so even when core inflation remains low, people will perceive rising food inflation as a acceleration of the general inflation, which may lead to higher wage pressures. Global economy can adjust much faster than three decades ago, with agricultural productivity in many emerging markets still at very low levels. But it will probably take few years before proper adjustment takes place. We may still be lucky, weather may be supportive and global supply will rise faster than expected and meet growing demand. But if we are not lucky, then the coming few years may become known as “food price shock” era. Unlike with the oil price shocks thirty years ago, when demand fell rapidly in response to skyrocketing prices of oil, in the case of food price shock demand adjustment is not possible, the only cure is to increase supply and increase world trade in foodstuffs. That is why liberalization of food markets in developed countries in a must, which is not understood by politicians in developed world, who care only about being reelected for next term, and local farming lobbies are usually very strong. With low likelihood of proper policy responses agflation is looming on the horizon.

There is also a large editorial in The Economist about agflation risks. Economist computes food prices since 1845, take a look at the recent rise, which is unlikely to be reversed any time soon.

economist_food_price_index.png

Related posts


Treasury Secretary Paulson speaks on China

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson outlined his views on US-China relations, please find below the 25% Copernic summary, and link to full speech. I read a lot every day, so I cannot manage to read all important speeches, Copernic Summarizer does a pretty good job in getting main points.

Paulson speech tags by Copernic:

economy China competition growth nations “United States” reforms “global economic leader” investment responsibility protectionism Chinese globalization trade jobs

Speech summary

One week from today, I will be in China to discuss the economic relationship between our two nations.

The prosperity of the United States and China is tied together in the global economy, and how we work together on a host of bilateral and multilateral issues will have a significant impact on the health of the global economy.

Half of all global economic growth in the last five years has come from the United States and China, and our two economies will continue to be the drivers of growth in the future.

Yet many view the growth of China and its increasing importance as the clearest and most tangible threat of globalization.

Those who welcome China’s growth and integration into the world economy, as I do, should confront this argument directly.

One lesson is that those nations that reform their economies and open themselves to competition benefit their citizens greatly.

At the same time, those nations that try to close themselves off from competition, hinder free markets, and fail to invest in their people, simply get left behind.

One area where I have personal experience is in financial services where I am a strong advocate of opening up the domestic capital markets and financial systems of our trading partners to international competition.

Healthy capital markets are absolutely critical to any nation’s long-term economic success.

And I don’t know of a single example of a nation which has a strong financial system and strong capital markets that has not opened itself up to foreign competition.

Our economy is by far the world’s strongest because it is built on openness — openness to people of all nationalities, openness to new ideas, openness to investment, and openness to competition.

Our proven success has allowed us to effectively advocate free trade and open markets here in the United States and around the world.

What Myrdal referred to as the Asian Drama is now the Asian miracle, with hundreds of millions of people freed from poverty.

In 1986, the Vietnamese launched the Doi Moi program of economic reforms that liberalized Vietnam’s economy and began to open it to foreign trade and investment.

When I visited Vietnam, I spoke to its leaders, but I also spent time with young entrepreneurs and students.

Rapid economic growth in Vietnam and other nations around the world benefits Americans by adding to the growth of the global economy, and over time, creating greater demand for our products and more jobs for our workers.

By closing off competition and blocking the forces of change, protectionism reduces the losses of the present by sacrificing the opportunities of the future.

I believe it is the responsibility of all nations to search for ways to moderate income disparities and help those who lose their jobs to international competition.

As the President has repeatedly emphasized, the most effective method for generating new, high-quality jobs, and higher living standards, is to develop the skills and the technologies that promote economic competitiveness.

Countries that implement market-driven policies which provide their citizens greater economic freedoms, find that those citizens also naturally seek a greater stake in their political system.

But it does mean that economic liberalization — with the interdependence and the growth that it brings — can play an important role in advancing the cause of peace and stability.

As a global economic leader, China should accept its responsibility as a steward of the international system of open trade and investment.

China’s remarkable success since market reforms began in 1978 has led many to predict that its meteoric growth will continue indefinitely — that we can extrapolate its future growth from its past performance — as if China has somehow found a way to immunize itself from business cycles and all other economic problems.

Another area where we look to Chinese leadership is for help reviving the Doha round of trade negotiations.

China now faces a difficult but essential phase in its development and the reforms it must continue to pursue will not be easy.

Up to now, rapid growth has been achieved by shifting excess labor from agriculture and state-owned enterprises to market-based manufacturing.

Today, as the most obvious sources of inefficiency are disappearing, growth will depend on raising productivity which, in my judgment, will require markets to allocate capital as opposed to administrative decisions.

The Chinese have an astonishingly high savings rate — 50 percent of GDP — because Chinese households face so many uncertainties.

China needs a more harmonious, more balanced pattern of growth that gives Chinese households more income and the confidence to spend it.

These challenges are made even more difficult by the fact that within China, as in the U.S., there are loud voices espousing anti-reform, protectionist sentiment.

In China this resistance stems from a number of factors including that the benefits of this economic expansion have been spread unevenly among its citizens and that some influential people have never fully embraced the need to open up the Chinese economy to competition.

This protectionist sentiment is evidenced by increasing levels of public discontent, demonstrations, and anti-reform articles written by prominent academics.

Over the last couple of years in my prior role, I was struck by the fact that some of the anti-trade sentiment manifesting itself outside our nation is turning into anti-China sentiment as more people in nations around the world are viewing China as a symbol embodying both the real and imagined downsides of global competition.

I believe that if China doesn’t move quickly to continue reforming its economy, it will face a backlash from other international economic stakeholders.

The United States has its own responsibility to help China continue its structural reforms and its transition to a market-driven economy that welcomes competition.

These include keeping our markets open to trade, to foreign investment and maintaining the flexibility and rapid productivity growth that has made us a driving force in the growth of the global economy.

On energy, China, which was self sufficient in oil until 1993, is now the world’s second largest oil consumer behind the United States.

Since much of the oil we both need is found in troubled regions of the world, China and the U.S. have common incentives to minimize regional instability while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

There are also important opportunities to work together to preserve and protect our environment.

They have to breathe the air, drink the water, and witness the environmental degradation on a first hand basis.

This demonstrated to me in a very tangible way that the U.S. and China share the goal of creating a cleaner China and a cleaner planet.

And we can and should be sharing technologies and best practices to protect our environment as we are through the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, along with Australia, India, Japan, and South Korea.

This initiative, which was established last year under Secretary Rice’s leadership at the State Department, is an innovative public-private partnership designed to address issues of the environment, energy security, and climate change in ways that promote sustainable development.

A much more flexible, market-driven exchange rate along with a more nimble, self-determined monetary policy are key ingredients to stable and sustainable, non-inflationary growth.

China cannot achieve its goal of being a modern economy if it fails to adhere to the rule of law and fair trade and encourage the innovation that is the engine of growth for developed — and developing — economies.

The United States has a huge stake in a prosperous, stable China — a China able and willing to play its part as a global economic leader.

The choices you make will affect many things from the air we breathe to price of our farm products.

And, of course, of vital importance to you is a United States of America with a healthy, growing economy which believes you are committed to being a responsible global economic leader dedicated to moving forward with your economic reform agenda and fair trade.

The full speech is here

Related posts