China and Japan: the contagion spreads – and free trade is the only possible solution

In China, unemployment is the challenge, social unrest the big worry.

In Japan, it seems exports are falling off the edge of a cliff. News that Toyota is now forecasting its first annual loss since the 1930s sums up the whole thing pretty well.

The real danger, however, is that the world retreats behind protectionism. That will surely be the single biggest threat in 2009.

According to this morning’s FT, the Chinese government is making tackling unemployment its number one priority.

Apparently 10 million migrant workers have lost their jobs, and almost half of that number have returned home.

Meanwhile, it is thought 1.5 million Chinese graduates are looking for work, and their number could swell next year as the next batch of graduates finish their degrees.

China’s problem is that it needs to grow, and it needs to grow rapidly just to stave off unemployment. That may seem bizarre, but as productivity rises, economic growth must rise too. The sum is simple. Say labour becomes 10 per cent more productive. Then output must grow by 10 per cent too, just for the jobs stats to stay still. Economists are now predicting growth in China will slow, perhaps to as low as 6 per cent. That is China’s challenge.

Mind you, despite the problems at China and the other BRIC nations, the ITEM Club from Ernst and Young reckons China is now just ten years away from being the world’s richest nation. The credit crunch has hit the US so hard that it now is forecasting the time when China’s GDP at purchasing power parity will be greater than the US, and this is coming eleven years sooner than it previously estimated.

Meanwhile, in Japan, exports fell by the equivalent of 27 per cent a year in November. Exports to Asia saw their biggest fall since 1986.

The Japanese trade account has now been in deficit for two months in a row.

As for the car maker in front, well, even Toyota is wilting. It has now forecast its first annual loss since the year of the company’s formation, 71 years ago.

The soaring yen, and falling global demand, means the company now expects to sell 4 per cent fewer vehicles than it previously said.

Japan has been in the dog-mire now for getting on for two decades.

In a way, the Japanese crisis which began at the end of the 1980s has affected us more than is commonly realized.

If the real underlying problem behind the credit crisis has been global imbalances, then the Japanese lost decade or two were an important part of that mix. The world’s second largest economy was selling to the rest of the world, but not buying. It was the same, too, with the world’s third largest economy, Germany.

Now the world needs Japanese consumers to start spending. But they haven’t done this for twenty years, so who is to say they will start now?

What the global economy requires is a global fiscal and monetary push. It especially needs to see this in the world’s big trade surplus countries. The danger is that the push is coming from the countries already in deficit. Or in other words, it is back to front.

There is real danger lurking, though, and if this is realized, things could get a whole lot worse.

The spectra of protectionism is lurking. What the world now needs is to see readjustment, as exporters start importing more.

Instead, we see the call for protectionism grow. From the US, where the cheap value of the yuan is held up as the cause of all ills, and moves to save its indigenous car industry; to France, as it tries to hide behind its new Maginot business line; and to China, as it attempts to shore up the job market.

What the global economy needs now, more than anything else, is a new, and this time successful, round of trade talks. This has to be the big priority for 2009.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

And now it’s globalisation’s turn to feel the hit

If you are anti globalization, then you should be out celebrating now. It is just that if you get your wish, and we do indeed see a reversal in globalization, nearly all of us will be worse off in the short-term, and in the longer-term we will all be worse off.

Yet, maybe the developments of the last few days are good for globalization; certain news out last week which was presented as bad for trade, could actually be good news – very good news – and it relates to the cost of trading.

There is more to trade than finding customers. You have to pay for the cost of transporting the goods too. When oil surged in price, so too did the cost of shipping. That was why it was argued here that the high price of oil would hit China hard too, even if oil is subsidized within the country.

But now it has all gone into reverse.

And evidence of the decline in international trade comes in the form of the collapsing Baltic Dry Index. Since May, this index has fallen 90 per cent – yes, that’s right, 90 per cent.

And what is this index? It relates to the cost of shipping.

As the global economy slows, so does demand for commodities, and, with that, shipping costs plummet.

At the moment, this is being seen as a sign of falling trade, but there is more to this than that. In the longer-term, it will provide the catalyst for the next boom.

It all boils down to Arctic hares and their predators, the lynx. Their tale has been told here before, but here is a recap:

In his book, Why Most Things Fail, Paul Ormerod told the story of how statisticians in Hudson Bay had observed a regular cycle in the population of these two species. Further study revealed that when the population of hares in the region was high, the lynx thrived and its populace increased in size rapidly, until the predators were consuming hares faster than their long-eared prey was able to reproduce. As a result, a shortage of hares followed, and a greater effort was required by each lynx to catch its dinner. In time, mass starvation of the lynx occurred, and its population fell rapidly. The hares then found little impediment to their own struggle for survival, until eventuality the cycle repeated itself.

The mistake these two creatures were making was that they were not seeing the big picture. Each boom caused the next slowdown, because they failed to take into account that the actions of individual hares and lynxes were being duplicated across the entire population.

Surely this story explains a good deal, and goes a long way to explaining the economic cycle. Global demand is crashing, and then, in turn, so will price. This will make trade affordable again. Cheaper shipping costs, and cheaper commodities, will lead to a new rise in trade. It won’t happen this year, it won’t happen next, but it will happen.

Capitalism is not dead. The only way this natural cycle will cease to work is if governments get in the way and try and boost demand, and in the process stop the natural correction of prices in their tracks.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Trade talks collapse. We need reason before they can be re-started

Trade: it’s the lifeblood of the global economy. Only through trade can we reduce poverty. Yet listen to politicians, with their own interests, and you would imagine trade is the cause of all our ills.

And now, after seven years of talks, and talks about talks, and recrimination, and threats, and cajoling, and statements along the lines of “it is essential we reach agreement”, the trade talks finally collapsed in Geneva yesterday.

It doesn’t mean the Doha round is dead – but it has certainly suffered a nasty wound.

And once again we hear recrimination and blame and disbelief, and yet we also hear others refusing to cast any blame at all.

The EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the collapse of the talks was “heartbreaking.”

China talked about “selfish and short-sighted behaviour” from the wealthier countries.

Yet, China also said we should “learn a lesson” from the failure.

India’s envoy to the talks, Ujal Singh Bhatia, said: “We can’t give up.”

Ultimately it came down to this. Developing countries want to be able to afford a greater level of protection for their farmers than the developed world would agree to.

Many expressed incredulity that the talks should fail just because of this one issue.

But in the US, as the economy totters on the brink of recession, many have started to look abroad and blame others for their crisis. They cling to the view that somehow trade is bad for jobs. That, despite the fact that trade is what has made the US so rich in the first place.

In Europe, French President Nicholas Sarkozy demand an urgent meeting with Mr Mandelson because he believed Tony Blair’s good friend, and arch supporter of free trade, was giving away too much.

And how can you answer that? The trade talks collapsed because the West would not agree to the developing world’s demands, and yet representatives of the West were being hammered for offering too much.

China, India, Brazil and Russia have clout these days. They no longer just roll over and accept what the wealthier nations tell them. And they are exercising that clout.

Yet in the West we see their economic growth as a sign they can no longer justify protection of their industries.

It is tempting to conclude that no one is right, and no one is wrong.

Besides, no one really expected the Geneva talks to bear fruit anyway – this was always a long shot.

Maybe the answer is to be less ambitious.

Yet, the prize for getting this right is huge. Most parties at the talks understand this, the problem is the electorate at home.

We keep hearing in the media how we should buy local, as if importing goods from a country that produces them more cheaply is somehow a bad thing.

Economic text books are full of reasons why trade is a good thing. And in some way we understand this implicitly. There is even a theory that Homo sapiens survived over Neanderthals because we traded, and they didn’t.

And yet we cling to the mistaken belief that tariffs and trade barriers help us preserve wealth. They don’t – not in the long run. Trade helps us focus on what we are good at.

The problem is not really with politicians, it is with us, as we cling to notions that, if implemented, could throw back economic development by years, and the politicians, anxious to win votes at home, get sucked into the melee.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, passed in 1930, was a previous attempt by the US to try and cope with tough economic conditions. The Act put tariffs on over 20,000 goods imported from abroad, and many argue it prolonged the depression for years.

The single biggest danger which lies in the current economic crisis is that we overreact, and there’s a backlash against trade.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit