Debunking the myths surroundng a Yuan revaluation

Posted by scapozzola on 11/03/2010

At the Peterson Institute's Real Time Economic Issues Watch, William Cline has authored an excellent, in-depth piece on why a revaluation of China's Yuan would indeed aid job growth in the U.S

Most significantly, Cline says that such a revaluation would lead to "an improvement in the trade balance" for the U.S.  Specifically, it would aid U.S. manufacturers and Cline believes that such an improvement would "occur on the export side rather than in a reduction in the dollar value of imports."

Cline also surrounding China's currency:

1. "The first is that the United States no longer manufactures anything imported from China."  Cline says this is "inaccurate even in some industries typically perceived as the domain of China and other developing countries."  He points to sectors where "Domestic production dwarfs imports from China: semiconductors ($60 billion versus $2 billion), textiles ($58 billion versus $2 billion), automobile tires ($17 billion versus $2.0 billion), furniture ($49 billion versus $13 billion), fertilizer and pesticides ($40 billion versus $0.8 billion), basic chemicals ($98 billion versus $4 billion), iron and steel products ($124 billion versus $4 billion), and many other sectors."

2.  The second myth is that China’s exchange rate does not affect its trade with the United States because in the period when it strengthened, from 2005 to early 2008, the imbalance with the United States widened instead of narrowing...this interpretation fails to recognize the lagged effect of the exchange rate in driving trade."

Read Cline's full article. 

1 comment

Anonymous wrote 2 years 28 weeks ago

It is not just the Yuan

As much as I agree that the value of the Yaun is distorting trade, there is a danger that a fixation on the Yuan alone will allow or encourage other distortions to take place. Take for example the comments from INTEL CEO, Paul Otellini.....

It costs Intel $1 billion more to build a factory in the United States than it does in China -- and it is not because of cheap labor. Ninety percent of the difference comes from the Chinese government providing Intel with capital grants, equipment grants, tax holidays and incentives.

Otellini says that almost all of Intel's primary competitors are in Asia and that they are provided with substantial leverage over American companies. "In the case of Samsung, which is a large competitor of ours, Korea basically [provides it with] zero taxes and free money," says Otellini. "You have people that work in standards that would not be acceptable to American workers. They have a different level of productivity. It's not something I aspire to, I just say that's a difference. They can get more out per nickel, so you have to watch that."

---------
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/newss/intel102.html

NB While I agree with Paul's detailing of the subsidise, I do not agree that we should address them my matching them.

Related recent Blogs

@KeepitMadeinUSA on Twitter