Towards Bretton Woods III

 November 9, 2010

The US Federal Reserve’s second round of quantitative easing has prompted near-universal condemnation by the financial leaders of Germany, China, Brazil, the ASEAN and the EU. From The People’s Daily to Der Spiegel, newspapers are full of criticism and dire predictions of an impending international currency war, which is bound to result from the flooding of the American banking system with largely un-needed liquidities. On the positive side, however, the Fed ‘s move has also accelerated calls for the replacement of the current international monetary system, also known as Bretton Woods II, with a less volatile one, which for convenience’s sake we might call Bretton Woods III.

Under the original Bretton Woods, the fixed exchange rates mechanism was anchored to the US dollar, which in turn was tied to the price of gold. In 1971, the gold standard was abandoned and exchange rates were allowed to float, an arrangement known as Bretton Woods II. The US dollar remained the world’s reserve currency. Floating exchange rates provided ample opportunity to speculators to bet against the fluctuations in the values of different curencies, or – as it happened in 1998 during the Asian financial crisis, to attack weaker currencies like the Thai baht or the South Korean won, halving their value.

The wisdom of having only one reserve currency underpinning the value of all other currencies, and floating exchange rates based on one currency alone has first been challenged by EU countries through the adoption of the euro. Its introduction has immediately lowered interest rates and eliminated the possibility of speculating the euro’s exchange rate in member countries, thus largely undermining the concept of the float.

The 2007-2008 financial crisis and two rounds of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve have accelerated moves towards the demise of the current dollar-based international monetary system. Indeed, with only 25 percent of the world’s GDP, the US economy is already hard-pressed to provide enough reserve assets, mainly US treasury bonds, to finance world trade. According to the IMF’s projections, if current trends are any guide, the ratio of issued reserve assets, currently at 60 %, would increase in 10 years’ time to 200 % of the US’ GDP, which would greatly increase the risk for major holders of US assets, such as China, Japan or the ASEAN countries.

Floating exchange rates, on the other hand, beside generating volatility, have led to the hoarding of US assets, especially in the wake of the Asian financial crisis. Thus Asian countries hold in excess of 6 trillion US dollars and treasury bonds, which they feel they need for open-market operations aimed at stabilising the exchange rates of their currencies and safeguarding their exporters. The current crisis has proved them right, as countries like China and Brazil have fared better than countries with less adequate US dollar-denominated reserves.

The Chinese central bankers would like to see the dollar replaced with an artificial asset created in the post-WWII era, the SDR (special drawing rights), whose administrator is the IMF. The Economist has even suggested the possibility of replacing the dollar with the euro as the world’s reserve currency, taking as a guide the way in which the British pound was replaced by the American dollar in the 20th century.

Finally, Robert Zoellick, the director of the World Bank, has lobbied in The Financial Times for the replacement of Bretton Woods II with a multiple currency system (the dollar, the euro, the yen and possibly the yuan, if and when it becomes fully convertible) to be based on the price of gold. Gold, as Zoellick points out, has already become a parallel reserve asset as a result of exchange rate volatility. In other words, the new international monetary system will have, in broad terms, the essential features of Bretton Woods I.

As the value of dollar-denominated assets worldwide stands to be heavily diminished by the Fed’s easy money policy, and as the floating currency system generates asset bubbles and financial instability for many nations, there is an urgent need to replace the current system with one more credible, more stable and less crisis-prone. Already, during last week’s talks in Paris, Presidents Sarkozy and Hu Jintao have agreed to put the reform of the international monetary system at the top of the agenda at the upcoming Seoul summit.

It seems that in future no one country will have the privilege of issuing reserve assets to back the world’s currencies. The new system will most likely be based on the assets issued by a group of economically powerful countries and will feature managed, as opposed to floating, exchange rates. (sources: Le Monde, Deutsche Welle, Financial Times, Reuters, The Economist)

Author : Spotlight on Geopolitics
 Print

Economy & Euro, English, External Relations  , China, E.U., euro, Japan, USA

Austerity, QE2 and the Global Economy

 November 2, 2010

Last week’s top-level political meetings which took place in Brussels and Hanoi ended up with similar calls on the US to avoid stimulating the American economy by printing more dollars. Trying to stimulate growth by flooding the American banking system with liquidity is only of marginal importance to the US economy’s woes. Yet this is exactly the measure that the Federal Reserve is contemplating this week, one known euphemistically under the name of QE2 – which stands for the second quantitative easing. The measure involves the spending of minimum 500 billion US dollars by the Fed to buy assets like treasury bonds back from banks and thus infuse more liquidity in the banking sector, ultimately benefitting potential borrowers.

The “easy money” measure bears all the hallmarks of Friedman’s monetarist theories. According to him and his followers, a financial crisis is aggravated by a lack of adequate liquidity within the banking sector. Tackling the liquidity problem is deemed to reignite economic growth.

The Fed’s move will further lower the exchange rate of the US dollar and cause the appreciation of other currencies worldwide. Already, the Japanese yen is at a 15-year high against the dollar. In the past few months, the Thai baht has risen by 11 percent, the Philippine peso by 7 percent and the Brazilian real has acquired the unenviable reputation as the most over-valued currency on earth. Since this summer, the euro has also risen by 9 percent to 1.39 dollars, badly affecting exports and the feeble economic recovery of 2009-2010 as well.

The draconian austerity measures recently adopted within the EU, combined with a printing of money by the United States are thus further endangering an already anemic economic growth in the West. The situation is so serious that even a publication like The Economist has felt compelled to finally incriminate austerity and money-printing, as the wrong policies for leading the global economy back to a sustained growth pattern :

“there is a danger of overdoing the short-term budget austerity. Excessive budget-cutting poses a risk to the recovery, not least because it cannot easily be offset by looser monetary policy. Improvements to the structure of taxation and spending matter as much as the short-term deficits.”

Fiscal stimuli, not austerity, and changes to “the structure of taxation” (!) are therefore the policies needed to bring the global economy back to 2007 output and performance levels (which, by the way, The Economist does not expect to happen before 2015 !).

As worried central bankers from Frankfurt and Tokyo will also meet this week, it will be interesting to see what countermeasures, if any, they will decide upon in response to the Fed’s expected QE2 decision. Unfortunately, even central bankers disagree when it comes to measures like austerity, fiscal stimuli and changes to taxation levels, let alone Western politicians under pressure from their electorates to cut taxes further or to reduce the size of government payrolls. With an expected Republican win in the US midterm elections and with conservative politicians in power in the EU’s leading countries, the outlook is rather gloomy. The continuation of current policies will see the Western world condemned to a Japanese-type decade of economic stagnation or, at best, sluggish growth.

Meanwhile, the Chinese economy will ring up another decade of stellar growth rates, if current and past trends are any guide.

The onset of a social tsunami

 June 17, 2010

Most of us over forty remember how it all started. The first neoliberal victories won by Margaret Thatcher in Britain led to the near collapse of the British trade union movement. The victory against Soviet-style communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall have led to ten years of economic euphoria in the West, resulting from the opening up of the Central and Eastern European markets. Unexpectedly, neoliberalism’s main economic tenets came undone during the first decade of the new century.

By way of analogy, the current sovereign debt crisis in Europe could safely be regarded as neoliberalism’s very own Stalingrad. Even before the 2007 financial crisis, the flawed logic of supply-side economists started to produce negative social results. Yes, profits accumulated for a while, but these only to a handful. True, most products became cheaper as a result of moving entire industries to former Soviet countries or to China. Lower taxes did initially benefit consumers, but provoked a dearth of social services, investment in infrastructure, hospitals and schools. After thirty years of neoliberalism, most people find themselves poorer and their children less educated than generations of the previous fifty years.

According to neoliberal theorists, economic growth, lower taxes and free trade would eventually trickle down prosperity to all. Instead, they have given rise to an ‘investing class’ who used the profits accumulated in their accounts in unproductive, i.e. speculative ways. This led to a series of bubbles – the dot.com bubble, the Japanese real estate bubble, the US sub-prime bubble – that ultimately culminated in the global financial crisis, similar in proportion if not in outcome to the one in 1929.

The situation created after 2007 led to the counter-offensive of states against mindless speculative activities, deregulation of financial markets and neoliberal economic philosophy. The latter, had it been applied in full, would have led to the withering away of states altogether. In other words, what Marxists were dreaming of doing, neoliberal societies very nearly achieved.

The counter-offensive of political administrations against neoliberalism has shaken the very foundations of the Washington consensus. Increasingly, Western politicians, industrialists and trade union bosses are talking about the opportunity of adopting a new development model, the Beijing consensus, in which state-led investment for major projects is again the main engine of economic activity.

Not surprisingly, the investing class, its rating agencies and press have resorted to savaging the European Union’s southern flank, provoking huge financial losses to the Spanish, Greeks, Italians, Irish, and ultimately to France and Germany. In this protracted battle one could foresee the signs of a social tsunami in the making. The signs are everywhere, from Athens to Bucharest, from Germany to Spain. In the months and years to come, the protests will increase in intensity and are set to sweep away entire political structures built around neoliberal tenets.

To be sure, this is not an exercise in ball gazing, but the result of an extrapolation of observable tendencies, as J.A. Schumpeter would have put it. A few years from now, huge economic inequalities within societies would cease to be acceptable. Financial speculation and low taxes would become a thing of the past. Whilst foreseeable, the outcome is not going to be reached comfortably and without defeating entrenched and powerful financial interests together with their many helpers.

Author : Spotlight on Geopolitics
 Print

English, External Relations  , neoliberalism