Comments 7

美国货币政策是中国制造吗？

Nov 9, 2015 Barry Eichengreen

阿姆斯特丹—在今年大部分时间里，投资者一直关注着美联储何时“升空”——即何时将利率提高25个基点（或0.25%），作为迈向货币条件正常化的第一步。市场因为美联储声明中的微小变化而波动，将这种措辞的变化视为即将“升空”的可能性的影响因素。

但是，在寻找美国货币条件变化迹象方面，投资者们找错了目标。自8月中旬以来，中国决策者让人民币贬值2%，震惊了市场。为了防止货币进一步贬值，中国官方外汇市场干预还在继续。中国当局一直在出售外汇储备（主要是美国国债），买入人民币。

这与中国在人民币强势期间的做法正好相反。那时，中国买入美国国债，阻止人民币升值和影响其竞争力。结果，中国积累了令人咋舌的4万亿美元外汇储备。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

China’s Currency Catch-22

Jul 19, 2018 Paola Subacchi
Can Multilateralism Survive?

Jul 20, 2018 Kemal Derviş
How to Debate a Populist

Jul 19, 2018 Helmut K. Anheier
Nationalism, Immigration, and Economic Success

Jul 18, 2018 Jason Furman
Trump May Kill the Global Recovery

Jul 18, 2018 Nouriel Roubini

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 in all 7 Comments on this article

Paul A. David Nov 16, 2015

Headlines for postings on technical issues often miss the point.
The question of whether or not US Monetary Policy "made in China" is not the most pertinent one to ask. Perhaps the reigning policy judgement among members of the Fed's OMC is that interest rates should rise, but, opportunistically, they much prefer at this time to have that policy move implemented "on the QT", so to speak -- through Quantitative Tightening by the Bank of China.
Steven Blitz Nov 15, 2015

why presume they are selling 10-yr notes? the 5-yr is the legal long bond for central banks and you said 60% of PBOC holdings are in bills yet those yields are negative ..... explain, please
jagjeet sinha Nov 11, 2015

The Brave New World is ZIRP & BITCOINS - currency merely a means of transactions, not of value.
Value derived from Real Assets and their Prices - not from currency.
Equity release, rental yields and dividend yields - the real income source of "Rentiers", not currency or interest rate instruments.
Currency perhaps of value between Two Currency Zones - China and USA and Europe.
Global Financial Architecture needs to be cognizant of dramatic challenges to conventional wisdom.
ZIRP is triggered fundamentally by the enormous consequences of debt driven economic growth worldwide.
Noble minds needed to sanitize currency and its role - one that facilitates transactions.
Currency as value - within a Currency Zone - seems to be anachronistic.
The liquidity taps that triggered the release of trillions tantamount to "democratization of currency and interest rates".
The battle between Currency Zones for Value creation - function of trading goods and services, and resultant equity markets (Stocks + RE).
Increasing interest rates - based on mindset believing currency as value benchmark - seems to be at cross purposes with currency as transaction tool. In fact, keeping it ZIRP enables Corporates Households and Governments to fund Real Value creation - if the value of currency falls, raising interest rates no longer the remedy. The remedy transmission must be channelled through Gains in Value - by Corporations Households and Governments - captured in Stock Indices and Real Estate Prices. And then if currency goes up - that is REAL.
Michael Public Nov 10, 2015

QE is becoming a weapon used to devalue a currency, as long as you are not doing more than the other countries interest rates will not rise.
Rick Puglisi Nov 10, 2015

China has a current account (trade) surplus with the US. Therefore, it has a capital account deficit with the US (China must invest in the US). While the currency manipulation has decreased, the trade imbalance has not and that is what really matters for the US economy. The US trade deficit is still taking 60% of the profits away from the US requiring the US gov't to run budget deficits with Fannie Mae housing guarantees (investment) to replace the lost profits according to the Kalecki profit equation.
Paul Hanly Nov 9, 2015

Interest rates for the 10 year treasury were 2.1977 on 14 August and 2.3147 on 9 Nov according to Blomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USGG10YR:IND
This is below the peak of the last year of 2.4838 on 10 June.
There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that the change in rates is caused by any Chinese sale of 10 year treasuries, but of course the possibility of some influence is worth noting.
Part of the problem is that when rates were 10% a 0.25% move was 2.5% of the actual yield. At 2% a 2.5% change in the yield would be from 2% to 2.05%
When rates were 10% the 0.25% move made almost no difference to the income of the holder of the bond and almost no difference to the capital value of a bond with 9.5 years to go.
Now a 0.25% move on a 2% yield makes a 12.5% change in the income or cost of borrowing and will similalry have a much larger effect on capital values of bonds with an almost 10 year remaining term.
The Fed is right to be very cautious and should really be starting out with 0.1% moves to minimise cash flow, profitand capital value movements.
Paul Daley Nov 9, 2015

China is doing what the United States should be doing -- selling off its bonds in order to support higher income flows with higher domestic lending and a lower exchange rate. Our FED is just not as well-equipped as the Chinese National Bank, so it can't compensate for any sale of bonds with new direct, or income-based lending programs. So it's left, like Eichengreen, hoping things work out, but scared to death they won't.

If you're going to lead the world, you need world-class institutions that are equipped to deal with any other competitor. Our FED doesn't have the policy flexibility enjoyed by the Chinese National Bank. It's being asked to compete with one hand -- the income-based lending hand --tied behind its back and ends up taking orders from a midget.

http://prosyn.org/gU3WWEg/zh;

Log in/Register

美国货币政策是中国制造吗？

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

China’s Currency Catch-22

Can Multilateralism Survive?

How to Debate a Populist

Nationalism, Immigration, and Economic Success

Trump May Kill the Global Recovery

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Italy’s Turn Against Europe

Why the World Cup Mattered

No Robo-Apocalypse

Can Multilateralism Survive?

PS. In Theory: Rethinking Austerity

What Trump Gets Wrong About EU Defense

Rewriting Europe’s Narrative

China’s Currency Catch-22

Cookies and Privacy