No es momento para una guerra comercial
Joseph E. Stiglitz
NUEVA YORK – Sigue la batalla de los Estados Unidos contra China por los tipos de cambio. Cuando comenzó la Gran Recesión, muchas personas se preocuparon de que pudiera aparecer el proteccionismo. Es cierto que los líderes del G-20 prometieron que habían aprendido las lecciones de la Gran Depresión. No obstante, 17 de los 20 miembros del grupo introdujeron medidas proteccionistas apenas unos meses después de la primera cumbre de noviembre de 2008. La disposición para promover la compra de productos estadounidenses (“Buy American”) que se incluyó en la ley de estímulo de los Estados Unidos fue la que más atención despertó. Sin embargo, el proteccionismo se contuvo debido en parte a la Organización Mundial del Comercio.
La debilidad económica sostenida de las economías avanzadas hace que exista el riesgo de una nueva ronda de proteccionismo. En Estados Unidos, por ejemplo, más de uno de cada seis trabajadores que desean un empleo de tiempo completo no logran encontrarlo.
Estos fueron algunos de los riesgos relacionados con el estímulo insuficiente de los Estados Unidos, que se diseñó tanto para calmar a los miembros del Congreso como para reanimar la economía. En vista de los déficit crecientes, es poco probable que haya un segundo estímulo y, debido a que la política monetaria ha llegado a su límite y a que apenas se puede controlar a los halcones de la inflación, tampoco hay mucha esperanza de obtener ayuda por esa vía. Así pues, el proteccionismo está cobrando un lugar preponderante.
El Congreso ha encargado al Tesoro de Estados Unidos que evalúe si China es "manipuladora de divisas". Si bien el presidente Obama ha retrasado durante algunos meses la fecha en la que Timothy Geithner, el Secretario del Tesoro, debe publicar su informe, el concepto mismo de “manipulación de divisas” está viciado: todos los gobiernos toman medidas que afectan directa o indirectamente al tipo de cambio. Los déficit presupuestales imprudentes pueden conducir a que haya una moneda débil, del mismo modo que las tasas de interés bajas. Hasta que estalló la reciente crisis en Grecia, los Estados Unidos se beneficiaban de un débil tipo de cambio dólar/euro. ¿Debían los europeos haber acusado a los Estados Unidos de “manipular” el tipo de cambio para aumentar las exportaciones a sus expensas?
Aunque los políticos estadounidenses se centran en el déficit comercial bilateral con China –que es persistentemente grande—lo que importa es la balanza multilateral. Cuando comenzaron las exigencias de que China ajustara su tipo de cambio durante la administración de George W. Bush, su superávit comercial multilateral era pequeño. Sin embargo, más recientemente China también ha tenido un superávit multilateral importante.
Arabia Saudita también tiene superávit bilateral y multilateral: los estadounidenses quieren su petróleo y los sauditas quieren menos productos estadounidenses. Incluso en términos de valor absoluto, el superávit multilateral de mercancías de Arabia Saudita de 212 mil millones de dólares en 2008 fue muy superior al de China de 175 mil millones de dólares; en términos de porcentaje del PIB, el superávit de cuenta corriente de Arabia Saudita, de 11.5%, es más del doble del chino. El superávit de Arabia Saudita sería mucho mayor si no fuera por las exportaciones de armamento estadounidenses.
En una economía global con una demanda agregada deficiente, los superávit en cuenta corriente son un problema. Pero el superávit en cuenta corriente de China de hecho es inferior que la cifra combinada de Japón y Alemania. Como porcentaje del PIB es del 5%, frente al 5.2% de Alemania.
Muchos otros factores, además de los tipos de cambio, afectan la balanza comercial de un país. Uno de los elementos determinantes clave es el ahorro nacional. El déficit comercial multilateral de Estados Unidos no se reducirá significativamente hasta que el país ahorre mucho más; si bien la Gran Recesión indujo un mayor ahorro doméstico (que era prácticamente de cero), eso se ha visto más que anulado por el creciente déficit gubernamental.
Es probable que un ajuste del tipo de cambio únicamente haga que cambie el lugar donde los estadounidenses compran sus textiles y prendas de vestir –en Bangladesh o Sri Lanka, en lugar de China. Mientras tanto, un aumento del tipo de cambio probablemente contribuirá a la desigualdad en China, puesto que los agricultores pobres se enfrentan a una creciente competencia de las granjas altamente subsidiadas de los Estados Unidos. Esta es la verdadera distorsión comercial de la economía global, por la que millones de pobres en los países en desarrollo resultan perjudicados mientras Estados Unidos ayuda a los agricultores más ricos del mundo.
Durante la crisis financiera asiática de 1997-1998, la estabilidad del renminbi desempeñó un papel importante para estabilizar la región. De la misma forma, la estabilidad del renminbi ha ayudado a que la región mantenga un crecimiento sólido, del que se beneficia el mundo en su conjunto.
Algunas personas aducen que China debe ajustar su tipo de cambio para evitar la inflación o la formación de burbujas. La inflación sigue estando contenida pero, lo que es más pertinente, el gobierno chino tiene a su disposición un arsenal de armas de otro tipo (desde impuestos a las entradas y los beneficios de capital hasta una variedad de instrumentos monetarios).
Pero los tipos de cambio sí afectan los patrones de crecimiento, y es del interés de China reestructurar y alejarse de una alta dependencia del crecimiento impulsado por las exportaciones. China reconoce que su moneda debe apreciarse en el largo plazo y convertir la velocidad a la que lo debe hacer en un tema político ha resultado contraproducente. (Desde que comenzó a revaluarse el tipo de cambio en julio de 2005, el ajuste ha sido de la mitad o más de lo que la mayoría de los expertos creen que es necesario.) Además, iniciar una confrontación bilateral sería imprudente.
Puesto que el superávit multilateral de China es la cuestión económica que preocupa a muchos países, los Estados Unidos deben buscar una solución multilateral basada en reglas. Imponer derechos unilaterales después de haber calificado unilateralmente a China de “manipuladora de divisas” socavaría el sistema multilateral sin muchos beneficios. China podría responder imponiendo derechos a los productos estadounidenses que se benefician directa o indirectamente de los subsidios otorgados como parte del enorme rescate de los bancos y fabricantes de automóviles.
En una guerra comercial no hay ganadores. Por ello, Estados Unidos debe tener mucho cuidado de no iniciar una en medio de una recuperación global incierta – por popular que pueda ser entre los políticos cuyos electores están preocupados, con razón, por el elevado desempleo y por fácil que sea culpar a los demás. Desafortunadamente, la crisis global se gestó en los Estados Unidos, y el país debe voltear hacia adentro, no sólo para reanimar su economía sino para evitar una repetición.
Joseph E. Stiglitz es profesor de economía de la Universidad de Columbia y ganador del Premio Nobel de Economía en 2001. Su libro más reciente: Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy ya está disponible en francés, alemán y japonés y pronto lo estará también en español, italiano y chino.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
www.project-syndicate.org
Puede escuchar un podcast en inglés de este artículo en el siguiente enlace: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/stiglitz124.mp3
Traducción de Kena Nequiz
You might also like to read more from Joseph E. Stiglitz or return to our home page.
|
|
amar 11:24 06 Apr 10
Great piece of information, as well commonsense in the article. But, I am sure the policy makers are aware of these, and other facts.We have not changed as humans: we will find a way to resolve an issue if we want to, and we will go to fight, if we have decided to do so. I have firm faith in what I wrote, because I know for sure, most of the policy makers are not women !
Mountern 06:26 07 Apr 10
The following article was written by Paul Krugman in criticism of Joseph E. Stiglitz in the New York Times. Below is my comments in the New York Times.
April 6, 2010, 7:59 pm
Immaculate Transfer Strikes Again
Oh, dear. Via Mark Thoma, I see that Joe Stiglitz has fallen victim to the doctrine of immaculate transfer:
Many factors other than exchange rates affect a country’s trade balance. A key determinant is national savings. America’s multilateral trade deficit will not be significantly narrowed until America saves significantly more …
OK, first of all: right now we’re up against the zero lower bound, with a depressed economy. Under these conditions, if a rise in the renminbi made US exports more competitive, the US trade deficit would fall. Yes, this would have to be matched by a rise in saving — but that rise would happen precisely because the trade improvement would lead to economic expansion, raising private incomes (with some of the increased income saved) and to rising government revenues, reducing the deficit.
But what really gets me is that Joe is thinking of savings as an independent determinant of the trade balance. I tried to clear this up 23 years ago; here we go again. Imagine that US savings rise and China’s savings fall, holding the exchange rate constant. Does this painlessly reduce the US trade deficit?
No, it doesn’t. Most of the fall in US demand is a reduction in demand for US-produced goods and services; most of the rise in Chinese demand is a rise in demand for Chinese-produced goods and services. So the net effect is to raise unemployment here and create inflationary pressures there — unless something shifts demand from Chinese to US goods. And that something should be the exchange rate.
Believing otherwise — believing that shifting savings somehow obviates the need for exchange rate adjustment — is what John Williamson, long ago, dubbed the doctrine of immaculate transfer. It’s a seductive fallacy, but it is indeed a fallacy.
My comments in The New York Times (no idea whether it will be posted)
I do agree with Joseph E. Stiglitz that "The very concept of 'currency manipulation' itself is flawed: all governments take actions that directly or indirectly affect the exchange rate. Reckless budget deficits can lead to a weak currency; so can low interest rates. Until the recent crisis in Greece, the US benefited from a weak dollar/euro exchange rate. Should Europeans have accused the US of “manipulating” the exchange rate to expand exports at its expense?".
Exactly when is a currency overvalued or undervalued? If you can't tell when is an economy in a bubble (see Alan Greenspan) then how can you tell when is a currency overvalued or otherwise. What is the formula to determine this? In a multilateral world - Joseph E. Stiglitz is right - making it difficult for China to export doesn't mean that trade deficits in USA will be reduced. It will only mean that another country will take the place of China to export to USA. That is globalisation at work.
The more you harped on this issue, Prof Paul Krugman, the more your reputation as an economist will be damaged. Put aside your personal bias and use your brain to consider trade issues or any issues. Your article didn't address all the issues the aricle written by Joseph E. Stiglitz brought up.
I have always respected your writing and basically bought every single books you have even written. I will continue to do so but for the wrong reason: to understand how come a great economist can degenerate to a poor one. Economists have poor reputation because they can't put aside their personal biases and consider problems logically. One moment they are for free trade and the next for managed trade. After a while they are so confused themselves they have forgotten what learned in first year economics in school.
Further comments:
Saudi Arabia also has a bilateral and multilateral surplus: Americans want its oil, and Saudis want fewer US products. Even in absolute value, Saudi Arabia’s multilateral merchandise surplus of $212 billion in 2008 dwarfs China’s $175 billion surplus; as a percentage of GDP, Saudi Arabia’s current-account surplus, at 11.5% of GDP, is more than twice that of China. Saudi Arabia’s surplus would be far higher were it not for US armaments exports.
So based on the above Saudi Arabia must be manipulating its currency as well. And if we adopt a multilateral stance and demand that all countries must have balanced trade, it would mean we should import less Arabian oil. Is that feasible? I think even multilateral trade balances is a fantasy. There is no such thing as balanced trade. There is such thing as pay what you can afford.
Hannibal 08:38 07 Apr 10
I just read the Krugman blog and flew right back here. I have a lot of respect for both Prof. Sitglitz and Krugman and I hope Krugman and Stiglitz will duke it out in the open, that would be a glorious fight.
I actually think that both sides have a point and the whole issue is not that clear cut, especially when we know that international trade is high distorted and battles have been waged again and agian over these issues. Nonetheless, over this currency issue, I think Krugman is generally right but the thing is how to make it work, how to achieve international balance, that's bascially what Dani Rodrik said about a month ago.
Furthermore, the lines of thought about US and China are completely different: one is a rich country, on the 1st-Best path, trying to get out of the slump while the other is a developing, low-mid income country trying to get more growth. Here comes the problem, China has been following the 2nd-Best path of growth and one change, albeit how minor, can be magnified and affect the whole economy due to its scale. There have been talks within China over the currency issue and the general consensus is that it has to be changed but they are just not sure when and how and what will happen to their huge USD reserve if they do. They actually agree with Stiglitz's SDR idea, and that's evidence enough that they want to change but the thing receives no international support.
All in all I think Krugman has the right intention and idea but he/the whole world does not have the method. The International System is a mess that it does not allow us to sort out the mess without fuzz. In order to fix the currency issue, we need to fix international trade and finance first (2nd-Best), I believe the battle should be waged over WTO and IMF.
Mountern 12:39 07 Apr 10
Dear Hannibal:
Both you and I were in the same camp before. I am fast decamping where Prof Krugman is concerned. And if we go by good intention the road to hell is paved with it.
You admitted as much we don't have the methodology to determine what is an overvalued or undervalued currency. Yet, in the same breath you unequivocally announced that Prof Krugman is right.
Prof Stiglitz has written at great length on the moral bankruptcy of the holy trinity WTO, IMF and World Bank. To seek their help on international trade issues would be akin to asking the Opium Trader whether selling addictive drugs should be banned. He would claim their product is not addictive and there is no reason why it shouldn't be treated like any other product. Check your history, there has been a precedent in the past you know. We could still do the same to Saudi Arabia and force it to legalise it. It would balance its trade since it is exporting so much oil and importing so little from the rest of the world. Where is the holy trinity and its voice on bailouts now that we are seeing monumental bailouts that make the Asian Crisis bailouts seem like small change. No, the holy trinity is just a morally and intellectually bankrupt religious organisation that cannot see its way past its own hidden agendas. You can ask Prof Stiglitz about it. He knows everything about them very well.
By now it must be obvious to any economist the concept of equilibrium is nice to have but reaching it is another matter altogether. There is no such thing as steady equilibrium. It is always over- or under-shooting. If you believe in unfettered capitalism you must allow the economy to do its work. If you believe otherwise, you can't cherry pick and simply pronounce that this part of capitalism is working fine and we should leave it alone but another part is not and we should do something about it.
The funny thing is every economist knows that forcing China to revalued its currency wouldn't solve USA's trade deficit problem as production would simply move to other lower cost production countries. It would cause great hardship in China and social disorder. Perhaps, it is never really about balanced trade but promoting democracy. The experience in Iraq and Afghanistan about promoting democracy willy nilly when the country isn't ready should be ample warning enough.
cheeheongquah 04:44 07 Apr 10
Absolutely right!
Once again, it shows that Krugman has been ignorant to argue for revaluation of the yuan.
The only solution now is free trade, 100%. Indeed, if movements of capital, labor, and goods had been perfectly free between China and US before the recent global crisis, the crisis would have been precluded.
If the Chinese had invested directly in the subprime mortgage business, it would have been their business when things went wrong. The Chinese would bear the consequences as a result of their carelessness with their money.
Yes, if AIG or GM were owned by the Chinese, or any other foreigners, things would have been much better. But the government and lobbyist had been over-protective.
What actually happened was the insurance provided by the US goverment on the bills and bonds held by the Chinese. The government then in turn lend the money to the private markets. If things went awry, the government would monetize the debts. I believe, the borrowing and lending business should be left to the market. It is the choice of the people to decide where their money should go.
If there were no treasury bills or bonds, or the like, the funds from abroad would flow into the US to the private markets. Hence, the Chinese would face the risks all by themselves. Hence, they might invest more in FDI across the globe or just consume more.
In any case, the current China-US imbalances would be significantly corrected. It is the role of the government in the financial markets to be solely blamed for the recent crisis.
Chee-Heong Quah
Hannibal 04:44 07 Apr 10
Dear Mounttern:
Thanks for your reply, it is always good to talk about these issues. I will have to say I'm a much bigger Stiglitz fan than of Krugman's. Nonetheless, I will try to keep myself impartial when talking about economics.
The thing that got me to side with Krugman is that China currency is a well-known issue on the question about international imbalance (Stiglitz's written extensively over this), even the Chinese is well aware of that in a sense. Chinese scholars recognize that pegging/watching or whatever that is with the USD is a big issue for itself: it causes infaltion domestically which cannot be crubed without hurting the economy in other ways and accumminlating dangerously large USD reserves. They just don't have a good enough solution that could get themselves out within this international monetary framework.
Furthermore, it is not just Krugman is saying it: he is just the loudest voice you can get, and that's him being Krugman; Rodrik is saying the same thing in a different tone 4 months ago (a correction for my above post, see http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik38/English). If you look at it both way, you will see that they are saying the same thing but the solutions are different becaue the focuses are different: Stiglitz here is akin to Rodrik's position and thinks that China's development should take the priority. That's why I say Krugman is right but he doesn't have the method because his focus is getting US out of the slump and place China's development in the 2nd place. It is the same thing with him over the climate issue.
Without a functional international system, the 2 goals will run into conflict with each other, making a zero-sum game, and it will be if the current conflict gets escalated and even turns into a negative sum game. One thing needs to be kept in mind is that there is no a priori way to judge which goal should come first: they are kind of relying on each other, esp. when China's growth is export led.
In addition, time is different with Asian Crisis. China back then did not "devalue" (also it was the period where China was going for "soft landing" as devalueing was not a good thing for itself), now the question is about whether it should "revalue", the problem with the USD peg was not an issue back in 97. Now it is actually a good chance for China to "revalue" as it will also benefit domestic consumers and reduce its reliance on export in a way.
I think you are right that this is not just about exchange rate. The reason China's got the attention is because of its scale, its regime, its up and comer status, and it being the buzz word of this era. For all it's worth, i doubt we can find the perfect solution here, and that cooperation and dialogue are more constructive than say condemning each other, and I think that is the central point of this Stiglitz piece.
But, of course, if you ask me, I would say we should wage/restart the war on the current "free market" paradigm, on the whole EU-Germany handling Greece and generally 1st-best economics myths. That's more of a long-terms project.
P.S. I should elobrate on China's inflation more. The current system goes like this: a China export enterprise sells certain goods overseas and gather a load of USD. In order for the enterprise to buy inputs it will have to transfer USD to RMB, and not long before there was law to collect all the USD with People's Bank, and only until recently firms can have a limited discretion over the use of its USD. Therefore for certain amount of export you have a equal amount of increase in USD and USD into RMB, thus inflation that People's Bank cannot control since it has nothing to do with its monetary policy. People's Bank can higher interest rate or increase capital requirement for banks (which it did) and still not solving inflation without hurting SMEs for example. Another issue is only all the big outward oriented corporations benefit from this system as they have quite an amount of USD/RMB and with that amount of RMB which cannot be spent elsewhere, firms are tempted to invest in real esate or other assets, causing assets price to increase, thus having a bubble as it currently is now.
Mountern 06:54 07 Apr 10
Dear Hannibal:
Both you and I share a common belief that conventional wisdoms in economic theory are far off the mark when it comes to predictive ability. As a result, unintended consequences abound and leave this world more chaotic and hazarduous.
If we are aware that we may be wrong chances are we would be making wiser decisions as we would have taken into consideration potential errors. If we merrily believe in a superior system when it is merely hubris to think so, the undesirable side effects may be 'fatal'. The current global economic crisis is a testament to this. Alan Greenspan happily pushing the agenda of Wall Street repeatedly claimed that he can't tell if we are in a bubble but yet he is so sure when we are in a recession and that gave him carte blanche to reduce interest rates to near zero thereby causing the world's greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Inflation is a subject fraught with fraud. Just about every country in the world try to placate their citizens that inflation is under control and published next to useless data claiming as such. USA recently ignoring important components and adding hedonistic calculation in the inflation index is a case in point.
In spite of the current economic crisis emanating from real estate there is no stopping the real estate upward trends. Why? Could it be the people no longer trust corporations or governments? The greed of senior executives is legendary and they have destroyed the trust of shareholders who are quietly exiting to safer bets in something more real: real esate. Governments printing money excessively added impetus.
To argue that if China doesn't revalue their currency it will cause inflation in their home country is too simplistic an answer for a subject that is fraught with frauds in the first place. If the currency is revalued all those people owning assets - in particular real estate - would experience a wealth effect leading to a greater demand for goods and services. This is inflationary. How do you know the wealth effect and other unintended consequences will not overwhelm the simplistic notion inflation can be brought under control with a stronger currency?
Economics is not called the dismal science for nothing. Till today we are still searching for the one-handed economist who can give a clear answer without prevarication and speaking with forked tongue.
petars1 08:37 09 Apr 10
no dialektic mind !?
petars1 08:38 09 Apr 10
no dialektic mind !?
petars1 09:08 09 Apr 10
I wanted to write that there is no dialectical detachment
SeoKungFu 04:38 22 Apr 10
The topic has continuation - "Why China is Right on the Renminbi" by Barry Eichengreen
BartekBartek 07:57 06 Apr 10
China's exchange rate policy is a good scapegoat for the American politicians. But it is not really the problem - the crisis started mainly in the U.S. and is, unfortunately as it is, of U.S. American origin.