« A Heart of Stone. | Main | How to Get a Job in Journalism. »
June 19, 2005
Krugman on China.
Somehow I don’t actually buy this analysis:
Sensing my surprise, Krugman lays out his argument. "China exports lots of goods and foreign companies are investing heavily there, so it's running a huge trade surplus. But rather than keep all that money, Beijing is using it, overwhelmingly, to buy US government Treasury bills.
"America is very dependent on its housing market right now. Almost everything moving the economy forward relates, directly or indirectly, to our housing boom." That sounds familiar, but how does it link to China?
Krugman then spells out the jaw--dropping extent of China's T-bill purchases: $200bn in 2004 and possibly as much as $300bn this year. Beijing, he says, is "bankrolling America's huge budget deficit", now almost 5 per cent of national income, to the tune of $1bn per day.
"At some point," he says, excited by the power of his logic, "China could well decide to stop this. If so, the dollar falls sharply, US interest rates rise and our housing bubble bursts."
Leave aside the fact that Channel 4’s economics correspondent doesn’t appear to know the difference between T-Bills and T-Bonds for a moment and think about the actual numbers being bandied about. Yes, $200 billion is lots of money. But is it really lots and lots of money, enough to turn the US economy? Outstanding T-Bill (and -Bond) debt is what, $ 6 trillion? $7 trillion? What are the numbers for foreign purchases? Via Mr S&M, the March figures.
Note that top line. Gross purchases by foreigners of US domestic securities are running around the $14 / $15 trillion mark per annum. The abscence or prescence of a $200 billion a year buyer in such a market does have some effect on prices, of course, but it’s pretty minimal. What Krugman’s doing is saying here is China’s gross purchases and I will compare that to the net position of purchases by all foreigners.
Look down a couple of lines and you will see the net position of purchases of T-Bills and -Bonds by foreign governments...around $200 billion. Wow! Oooooh! Scary! China buys $200 billion (gross), foreign governments buy $200 (net) so if China stops buying no one will buy any and we’re all doomed, doomed I tell you!
No, I don’t think that it is all that wonderful an idea that the renmimbi is held down, yes, there do need to be some changes in US budget practices, yes, spending a little less money would do the Federal Govt good but I do think that this hysteria over Chinese bond purchases is a little overdone. We are, after all, talking about $200 billion gross in a market that is worth $15 trillion gross. Or 1.3 % of the market, enough to sway prices but is it really enough to cause major changes?
One further thought. If you look closely at those figures, governments actually did start disinvesting in US Treasuries in March. To the tune of $15 billion, about equal to the Chinese monthly number. And what has happened? Very roughly, US long term interest rates have fallen and the dollar has, err, risen. Yes, there’s many things that influence such prices but it would seem that a foreign government (or all together) not buying $200 billion a year’s worth of Treasuries is not the overwhelming disaster that the dear Professor Krugman is proposing.
I’m also aware that I’m only an amateur playing with these numbers so if anyone can tell me why Krugman is right and I am wrong then I’m all ears.
June 19, 2005 in Economics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8347f6f3c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Krugman on China.:
Comments
Tim,
Apropos of absolutely nothing to do with your post, but there seems to be a huge gap between the ending of your post and the comments tag! Is it me and my PC, or is it your posting?
Posted by: Mike Cunningham | Jun 19, 2005 9:36:20 AM
The former Enron advisor Krugman also fails to account for what would happen to the money if the Chinese spent it on something other than our debt. If they traded their money for something else, then someone else will have the money, and trades would continue until someone traded dollars for American products, assets, or debt. The consequences Krugman describes would happen If the money simply disappeared (but the fed could make it reappear). Any policy (especially tax cuts) can be shown to have bad consequences if you simply fail to account for lots of money.
Posted by: TDM | Jun 19, 2005 7:17:34 PM
As long as China is running a trade and FDI surplus and as long as they want to keep their currency "competitive", the PBoC has no choice but to buy dollars and do something with it. Either they buy US assets (Treasuries or something else) of they buy euros and yen and force the financing problem onto the Europeans or the Japanese. The only way for them to stop financing the US Treasury, directly or indirectly, is to let the currency appreciate enough to dry up both the trade surplus and FDI. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 20, 2005 10:09:45 AM
Anyone else notice how badly the correspondent gushed over Krugman in that interview? I half expected him to be knighted or beatified by the end of it.
Posted by: James | Jun 21, 2005 12:57:28 AM
Krugman had a column on this theme recently.
People, including Krugman, have been kicking these seeming imbalances around for years (my thoughts on his 2003 venture into these waters.)
I have three thoughts:
First, I concur with TDM, above - if China stops buying dollars and starts buying Euros, or yen, or cement and steel, it just means that someone else ends up with dollars in hand and a decision to make.
Secondly, the scenario described by Krugman requires a rather passive Federal Reserve. One might expect them to cut rates as the US economy weakened, thereby salvaging the US mortgage market (much of which is pegged to short term rates), the US consumer, and the world.
Third, as Krugman notes, the CHinese aren't buying Treasuries because they are philanthropists - they need an undervalued currency to keep their own economy growing.
Unless their interests, and the path to achieving them, change dramaticaly, they are as hooked on the US consumer providing employment to (potentially) restive Chinese as the US is on Chinese providing financing to eager consumers.
Posted by: TM | Jun 22, 2005 2:16:29 AM
Isn't it possible that Krugman was just misquoted? That he was lamenting the $200-300 billion of debt per year funded by all foreigners and mentioned how China was a substantial player, and the journalist got confused on this?
Posted by: DonPedro | Jun 29, 2005 8:26:46 PM
