China to allow more “flexibility” to its exchange rate

Posted by Ray on June 19, 2010 under Main | Be the First to Comment

The media is abuzz with China’s central banks decision to allow the RMB to float a bit more freely, but no one is asking the more important question, which way will they let the currency float? Everyone and by everyone I mean certain U.S. Senators and some White House officials, claims that the artificial weak currency has cost Americans their jobs. The claim is it has cost millions of Americans jobs, but the it utter nonsense and political posturing.

A weak currency definitely gives China an advantage, it gives any country an advantage, but at the end of the day China had their currency pegged to the U.S. dollar, so perhaps our political officials should have been looking in the mirror while throwing criticism towards China. In other words, if our currency was stronger it stands to reason that China’s currency would be stronger as well. However, we all know that the intention of the U.S. government is not to have a strong dollar, but to have a weak dollar. That would mean a weaker RMB which would give China an advantage, in the eyes of those living in the land of the blind, in world trade.

How do we know the U.S. wants a weak dollar? Simple, Obama told us. He wants to double exports within 5 years, but we have the most expensive workforce in the world and are largely viewed as inefficient because of our pesky workers rights laws. That makes producing goods in the U.S. for export very difficult with the exception of complicated financial instruments, bombs, military hardware and some technology items. Let’s look at producing hammers, a hammer made in the U.S. would cost about $10, but a hammer made in China would cost about $5, why? Labor costs. The steel is going to be about the same and they are shipping the steel to China and the final product from China to the U.S. at half the cost. They pay the same amount of money for transportation, energy and raw materials, but they pay less for labor. My point is that we cannot export more without severely devaluing our currency or our standard of living.

Which brings me to my next point, China’s willingness to let their currency float more freely, great, but which way? One of China’s major manufacturers, the one were all the people are killing themselves, you know, Apples plant, is raising their workers’ salaries by 14%. Now, forget that 14% on $2 an hour only means another $.28 an hour, but that is a significant increase in labor costs, but are your iPad and iPhone costs going up? No, as an aside, this is just one more reason that I feel good about not owning an Apple product. I have also said that the Euro’s collapse is a significant issue for China, it still is, and a further decline in the Euro means China’s #1 importer of goods will import less, much less from the big red giant. What I am saying is it is entirely likely that China will float their currency lower and now they can claim it is the free market doing it, smooth move if you ask me.

It is not possible for China to have a rising currency, a weakening Euro, a weakening USD and higher wages for its workers with most manufacturers maintaining profit margins of 3%. It just doesn’t work for China and we all know the ruling party wants to maintain its power and in order to do that it must make the people happy. Without plus 8% GDP growth unemployment will increase and discontent will grow threatening the powers that be. In other words, the RMB will go lower unless other currencies increase in value. I realize this is an outside the norm view, but if one steps back and looks at the bigger picture it makes sense.

I could be wrong and perhaps every firm is out there hedging their currency, but that is highly doubtful. Even if they did it would not stop the slowdown in exports and all the bubbles in China will pop at roughly the same time, in the next few months. It is funny that the same people who said the U.S. was not in a real estate bubble in 2006 are saying China is not in bubble territory now, they are. Any slowdown, even a minor hiccup is extremely dangerous and has worldwide ramifications. We are talking about the engine of the “worldwide recovery story” here, not some small corner of the world that does not matter. If their currency appreciates and the slowdown is bigger than anticipated, they always are I might add, there are no more surpluses, no more U.S. debt auctions to show up at and prices will head higher on products.

It also means that they may become net sellers of treasuries instead of buyers, that is not good news, if their currency does appreciate. However, it won’t happen, it will go lower and everyone will be surprised when it happens, except for me. It is clear as day that the Chinese economy is showing extreme signs of stress, look at their markets, they are way off their highs and have been for some time now.

From my lens the entire system is in major trouble and it is evident when we try to find scapegoats for our problems, bankers, the Chinese with their cheap currency, etc. The system needs to reset itself and it cannot happen with all of this intervention and additional debt. Everything needs to be restructured and debts need to be purged from the system, but this will never happen as it means everything goes to zero. Instead we will carry on blaming others, inflating our way out and causing much more pain than by having an absolute reset.

Annuity Blog FeedSubscribe to Annuity IQ's Feed
Blog Directory
LS Blogs


Sphere: Related Content

Happy New Year

Posted by Ray on January 1, 2010 under Main | Be the First to Comment

To kick off the New Year you should go read this guy’s silliness. It is no wonder why he has been largely discredited and why he completely missed the housing bubble in 2005-06, he was the guy laughing at Peter Schiff when Schiff told him lending standards were nonexistent, guess who was right?

What I found amazing is that Mike Norman actually thinks that issuing treasuries is not borrowing money. Furthermore, he actually states the following, this blew my mind because it is utter nonsense:

Some would argue that the vote simply gave the government the right to “borrow” $290 billion more, so it did not really increase its spending power at all, only the amount it could take from others. This argument would be wrong.

Government spending, by definition, increases the amount of reserves in the banking system and those reserves are the funds used to buy Treasury securities. Therefore, it is correct to say that government spending itself provides the money to buy the debt.

How else can you explain how the national debt went from $900 billion to $12.4 trillion over the past 30 years with interest rates falling to historic lows or even zero? If the issuance of government debt were truly “borrowing” then rates would have climbed to astronomical levels.

If this made you say, what!? You are not alone. I know what he is saying and on the surface he is kind of right, but it is also the words of a true idiot. I will explain this in a very simple way for Mike to understand, if you issued your own debt and could control your interest rates, would you keep interest rates, the amount you pay, high or low? Clearly you would keep the amount you pay low, unless you like paying a lot more for what you borrow. Now, that is a very simplistic way of approaching the total issue and it is much more involved than that, but I fear if he reads this getting into details would probably confuse him.

Apparently Mr. Norman is one of these people who thinks you can issue unlimited debt or “increase the amount of bank reserves to buy treasury securities” and we never have to pay the piper. I find this fascinating that one can think that investors will never, ever, want their money back or that even though we have to pay interest on the amount of money we spend it is still not considered borrowing. I am not sure how that is not debt or borrowing nor am I sure how one can borrow their way to prosperity, but I find this disturbing among many economists in the US, including one Nobel Prize winning economist who writes for the NY Times a lot.

The last time I checked those who tried to borrow their way to prosperity, Dubai, Argentina, home owners, Eastern Europe and so on all ended up not doing so hot or defaulting. I am not suggesting the US will default on its debt, that would be crazy, we will simply inflate our way out as that is the game plan. Well, I guess I am early in giving out my 2010 Contrarian Award to Mr. Norman for going against all conventional wisdom and basic economic teachings when we examine debt and prosperity. Debt, for a lack of a better term, is good. I gotta stop, my head hurts.

Annuity Blog FeedSubscribe to Annuity IQ's Feed
Blog Directory
LS Blogs


Sphere: Related Content


Learn  basics of stock market from   bettertrades , a company founded by Freddie Rick . Learn  options trading   to make money through buying and selling options.
home top



website statistics Site Meter