exchange rates and Greece

[fpb]

One of the habits of mind induced by a Marxist education is to consider the economic and political battlefield as a zero-sum game. This lasts even after any belief in socialism has died out, and results in the frequently observed phenomenon that ex-Marxists and ex-Communists make the most brutal, rapacious and conscienceless capitalists. It is, in particular, incredibly easy to spot in the destructive and profoundly stupid behaviour of the People's Republic of China.

This government, knowing perfectly well that international Islamism is at least as much its enemy as the West's, nonetheless looks with unconcealed sympathy and support to the Iranian government's pursuit of the atom bomb, and looks for advantage and alliances in the Islamist fever-swamp that is the government of Sudan. As far as they are concerned, anything that diminishes their imagined enemies in the West, however dangerous and destructive, must necessarily be to their advantage. That the West and China might both lose out if the maniacs of Tehran build an atom bomb does not begin to cross their minds. That there might be mutual advantage in fostering order in the region would never seem to them anything but a piece of pied-piper propaganda intended to get them to perform to their enemies' tune.

Some apologists for Beijing say that Chinese foreign policy is driven by the need to secure sources of raw materials; but this is nothing but a different manifestation of the same pathology. The fact is that raw materials are available to anyone who can afford to pay the going rate. Japan and Italy, two countries who have to import every major industrial raw material from iron to oil, have rarely had any problem. It is only in the mythology of ignorant (by choice) hard left groups, that the Americans have invaded Iraq "to steal its oil": that oil was available to them freely without the expense of a war, as is any mineral from bauxite to zircon. Only China does not think in terms of competing for resources on a free market; it wants to "secure sources of raw materials" - language that should concern any mining country from Congo to Australia.

The one reason that makes this kind of talk a bit less irrational is itself a product of the same post-Marxist zero-sum-game attitudes. China is effectively at a disadvantage on the market for raw materials; not because it does not have army bases in Iraq, but because its currency is notoriously undervalued. And it is undervalued for a purpose: to maximize the Chinese competitive advantage in industrial exports. The same juggling with exchange rates that allows Chinese manufacturares to destroy whole areas of competing Western enterprise, also makes it more expensive for them to buy the raw materials they need. But since the zero-sum-game mentality inevitably leads to paranoia, the Chinese don't think of the remedy - allowing the renminbi to reach its natural market value. As they are always looking out for enemy conspiracies to do them down, they would interpret such a suggestion as an attempt to rig the market in favour of their enemies.

The aggressive Chinese export drive, backed by a massive industrial espionage apparatus, has been unsettling Western economies for decades. The West long ago made a strategic decision to do nothing about it: the prospect of inserting the huge and dangerous empire of Mao Zedong into the world of civilized exchange and industrial progress seemed worth the pain of accepting aggressive competition and dubious pricing. However, when purely internal Western follies brought about a severe resettlement of American finance, the Bush II and Obama administrations did not try too hard to rescue the dollar. They, too, had discovered the game of overcharging for imports and undercharging for exports, and badly needed to find ways to raise employment.

This left the Euro alone on the top of a mountain. The result is the sluggish economy that conservative Americans make so much of. No matter how efficient and high-quality may be the Eurozone's productive sector, it is difficult to compete with rivals of whom the largest deliberately allow their currencies to float at well below ours. And that is, in my view, the reason for the otherwise disconcerting lack of eagerness about rescuing Greece. Greece has certainly been placed in the national equivalent of administration, and will have to go through the most painful process of internal change in generations. But the truth is that the current slide of the Euro is getting the real big boys of the Eurozone - Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy - out of a situation for which they had absolutely no enthusiasm. The truth is that nobody wanted the Euro to be the world's new reserve currency, and certainly not at this price. The result, however, is that, with the dollar, the euro and the renminbi racing each other to the bottom, the world no longer has a real reserve currency.

What we need is a new Bretton Woods. The trouble is that it took a world war and fifty million dead to get the survivors to agree to the first Bretton Woods, and I doubt that anything today could make the same impression.

Comments

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Brilliant! That being said, many people within hearing DID say they wanted the euro to become a reserve currency. Most if not all for the same stupid chest-thumping reasons, but it does underpin a good deal of the thinking still.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Up to a point. I should have qualified that, but if I qualified every statement I made here that needed qualifying, this would turn into a book. What I would say is: quite a few European leaders would have liked it if they could have replaced the dollar relatively painlessly and not too fast. But it was not a priority to much of anyone, let alone a driving need. In fact, the last two generations of politicians in Europe have grown in the tradition of minor valutas, and in a situation such as the last few years', it would have been their instinct to let the exchange rate fall or inflation rise or both. The existence of the euro made that impossible - and indeed, that was one of the reasons why it was created - but the instincts don't die in a day, and when the Greek disaster came, there must have been many European leaders who thought, even if they did not say it, "well, it could have happened at a much worse time". The lack of drive cleaning up the Greek mess tells the same story: European leaders don't feel the decline of the Euro as a major threat, and don't feel an urge to stop it. Indeed, the very fact that Greece - among other weak economies - was admitted to the Eurozone in the first place tells the same story: if the making the Euro a rival to the dollar as world reserve currency had been a heartfelt need and a real priority, Italy and Spain would have struggled to get in , and the likes of Latvia and Greece would not even have been considered.

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

I think a great deal of the thinking, in the past and even still today among the right, was that capitalism would somehow save China's soul. It's a belief that kind of hangs out in the back of the mind and will not stand up to any scrutiny, because it's ridiculous and insulting to everyone involved. As if Louis Vuitton bags and Coca-cola not only are enough to totally transform a person, but also that these kind of consumer items represent the height and glory of the West.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Quite right. I'd rather put my trust in Beethoven, myself.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

China is and always has been a greater threat to the West than Iran or Islamic extremism.

Zero-sum thinking is endemic among people of all political persuasions, even free marketers. I think it's practically human nature, the idea that if someone else gains, you must lose.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Yes, but in Marxism it is essential, so fundamental that it is the last thing to go. The basic idea is: what one capitalist gains, another loses (hence Marx' forecast of growing, and finally universal, oligopoly and monopoly); what the capitalist class gains, the lower classes lose. The point has to be emphasized, because it has to overcome a common attitude among lower classes, that is that their prosperity and safety is tied up with the success of their upper-class leaders (hence the loyalty to kings and the like which is so widespread a historical phenomenon).

excellent post

[affablestranger.livejournal.com]

Well done, sir. As always.