Mr Yuan

Senior monetary officials usually talk in code. So when Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, spoke recently about Asia, international imbalances and the financial crisis, he didn’t specifically criticize China’s outrageous currency policy.

But he didn’t have to: everyone got the subtext. China’s bad behavior is posing a growing threat to the rest of the world economy. The only question now is what the world — and, in particular, the United States — will do about it.

Some background: The value of China’s currency, unlike, say, the value of the British pound, isn’t determined by supply and demand. Instead, Chinese authorities enforced that target by buying or selling their currency in the foreign exchange market — a policy made possible by restrictions on the ability of private investors to move their money either into or out of the country.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with such a policy, especially in a still poor country whose financial system might all too easily be destabilized by volatile flows of hot money. In fact, the system served China well during the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. The crucial question, however, is whether the target value of the yuan is reasonable.

Until around 2001, you could argue that it was: China’s overall trade position wasn’t too far out of balance. From then onward, however, the policy of keeping the yuan-dollar rate fixed came to look increasingly bizarre. First of all, the dollar slid in value, especially against the euro, so that by keeping the yuan/dollar rate fixed, Chinese officials were, in effect, devaluing their currency against everyone else’s. Meanwhile, productivity in China’s export industries soared; combined with the de facto devaluation, this made Chinese goods extremely cheap on world markets.

The result was a huge Chinese trade surplus. If supply and demand had been allowed to prevail, the value of China’s currency would have risen sharply. But Chinese authorities didn’t let it rise. They kept it down by selling vast quantities of the currency, acquiring in return an enormous hoard of foreign assets, mostly in dollars, currently worth about $2.1 trillion.

Many economists, myself included, believe that China’s asset-buying spree helped inflate the housing bubble, setting the stage for the global financial crisis. But China’s insistence on keeping the yuan/dollar rate fixed, even when the dollar declines, may be doing even more harm now.

Although there has been a lot of doomsaying about the falling dollar, that decline is actually both natural and desirable. America needs a weaker dollar to help reduce its trade deficit, and it’s getting that weaker dollar as nervous investors, who flocked into the presumed safety of U.S. debt at the peak of the crisis, have started putting their money to work elsewhere.

But China has been keeping its currency pegged to the dollar — which means that a country with a huge trade surplus and a rapidly recovering economy, a country whose currency should be rising in value, is in effect engineering a large devaluation instead.

And that’s a particularly bad thing to do at a time when the world economy remains deeply depressed due to inadequate overall demand. By pursuing a weak-currency policy, China is siphoning some of that inadequate demand away from other nations, which is hurting growth almost everywhere. The biggest victims, by the way, are probably workers in other poor countries. In normal times, I’d be among the first to reject claims that China is stealing other peoples’ jobs, but right now it’s the simple truth.

So what are we going to do?

U.S. officials have been extremely cautious about confronting the China problem, to such an extent that last week the Treasury Department, while expressing “concerns,” certified in a required report to Congress that China is not — repeat not — manipulating its currency. They’re kidding, right?

The thing is, right now this caution makes little sense. Suppose the Chinese were to do what Wall Street and Washington seem to fear and start selling some of their dollar hoard. Under current conditions, this would actually help the U.S. economy by making our exports more competitive.

In fact, some countries, most notably Switzerland, have been trying to support their economies by selling their own currencies on the foreign exchange market. The United States, mainly for diplomatic reasons, can’t do this; but if the Chinese decide to do it on our behalf, we should send them a thank-you note.

The point is that with the world economy still in a precarious state, beggar-thy-neighbor policies by major players can’t be tolerated. Something must be done about China’s currency.

Paul Krugman

28 Oct 2009

The Singapore Business Model

The SDP opposes plans to close five wet markets in Singapore to be replaced with supermarkets. This will increase the cost of doing business and raise prices of produce and other foodstuff.

Supermarket chain Sheng Shiong announced that it was buying over five wet markets in various housing estates and converting them into air-conditioned market facilities. The plan has sparked off unhappiness among Singaporeans.

The Singapore Democrats are concerned that such a conversion will mean that the stallholders will end up having to pay more for operating in the new facilities. The higher costs will be passed on to the shopper and add to the already high cost of living of Singaporeans.

At a time where inflation is already outstripping wages, such a move is reprehensible. It will only lead to more difficulties for the people.

If the idea is to create a one-store supermarket, the vendors will lose their independent livelihoods and may end up becoming workers of the supermarket. They will then have to compete with foreign workers which means that their income will be drastically reduced.

For these reasons, the Singapore Democrats are opposed to HDB approving the sale of the wet markets to Sheng Shiong. Among the five markets that are affected are: Choa Chu Kang Street 62, Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1, Serangoon North Avenue 3, Bukit Batok West Avenue 8 and Fajar Road.

The SDP will take the case to Singaporeans especially the residents at the Bukit Panjang constituency where we contested in the last general elections.

In our regular and on-going visits to the estate, we will draw attention to this unthinking and uncaring move, and will call on residents there to reject the politics of greed and profit-making at the expense of the economic well-being of the people.

We will ask the residents to oppose the sale of the wet market at Fajar Road and in so doing keep prices of foodstuff and other essentials from going up even further.

Singaporeans must put a stop to this hawking of the people's interests to the highest bidder. This has caused much hardship for the people as prices continue to escalate beyond our means.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with SDP that the government's system of allowing private vendors to bid for and operate basic facilities, amenities and services such as hawker centres, markets, carparks, traffic and parking warden services, postal services, factory spaces, building of public flats, etc.

These private bodies, whose sole prerogative is profit-making, only act as an additional cost layer that inflates prices to the lay consumers while providing minimal or no value-add. They also usually charge a premium to merely act as middle-men to resell the facilities to the final retailers.

Anecdotal evidences indicate that they do not provide a higher quality of services than that of the statutory boards or ministries who used to run these.

If the statutory boards and ministries profess themselves to be bodies of efficiency and cost prudence, then they should not take an easy way out by devolving basic responsibilities to private vendors.

If the statutory boards' and ministries scope of responsibilities have been reduced over the years, then there should be a corresponding reduction in budget allocated to them.

SDP should be commended if it can keep tab on how the government allows the private sector to encroach on basic services to the people. This article itself represents a measure and balanced approached taken by the party without innuendos and undue politicking. Kudos and keep it up.

Comments by BryanT

On a similar note: Third-party service provider business model enslaves the common worker.  Business owners have to out-bid their rivals to secure the contract at cut throat prices. As a result, workers (rank and file) terms of employment are most often unfavorable (Long hours and at low pay). Supervisors and managers have to juggle between the interest of their employer and their client. On the one hand, managers have to ensure the company make a profit and on the other, fulfil the demands of the client, of which the company is held bond by the terms of the service contract.

Where and who to squeeze? The lowly educated, out of options common worker. "You don't want this job?", "I can easily find foreign workers to fill in you know..."

Business owners need to maintain profit which leads to manpower and material constraints, which put the manager/supervisors in a precarious situation which, eventually (one of these days) leads to a breach of service contract. Lowered service quality impact the client  "business". In the case where the public is the end consumer, growing dissatisfaction ensue.

And where does all the profits go to?

While the rest of us are mirred in the blame game, workers blaming fellow workers (and even blaming foreign workers for taking away our jobs), the owners of capital (are government owners of capital?) are laughing to the bank.

05 October 2009