Category: China

Econ 101: Trade deficits

A trade deficit is the difference between what we buy from the rest of the world and what it buys from us. To that extent rather than buying our goods and services, the rest of the world holds our dollars. These dollars are most often held in the form of US securities (Treasury bonds, etc.). Though trade deficits help finance Uncle Sam’s spending that is not financed with tax revenue, and thus reduce the crowding out of domestic investment by government deficit spending, President Trump doesn’t like them. Our trade deficit in 2024 was $918 billion.

Trade deficits can be reduced by reducing our imports (this is what tariffs tend to do) and/or by increasing our exports. We export many things including food and oil. Tourism and foreign students studying in the US generate about 9% of our export revenue. This has dropped sharply this year as the Trump administration has blocked or discouraged foreign students and badly treated other visitors, denying entry to some. It has suspended entry of new foreign students to Harvard and is threatening to revoke existing student visas at Harvard.

Trump has not only reached into the affairs of Harvard (and those of many other “enemies”), he is also demanding that the US dollar surpluses held by our trading partners be invested as dictated by the Trump administration. This was stated explicitly by US Treasury Secretary Bessent in an interview by Larry Kudlow on Fox Business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgcmRJpE1pc  

It is hard to see much free market here. Gregg Ip nails it in his recent WSJ article “The U.S. Marches Toward State Capitalism With American Characteristics”  https://x.com/greg_ip?lang=en

Trump’s Chainsaw

I assume that I approve of many of Trump’s cuts or closers. But how can I know? His executive orders do not include or are not preceded by a discussion of the issues involved and the pros and cons of alternatives, as is customary in free societies.  As our government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, it is essential that “the people” debate the desirability of polices and their adoption. In the end they need to be accepted by us as desirable or at least OK. My goal is a federal government limited to powers granted in our constitution, delivering only those services that are wanted and doing so as well and efficiently as possible.

But Trump takes a different approach.  Lindsey Halligantold Trump that the Smithsonian needs to remove “improper ideology”. He’s ordered her to do it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2025/04/21/lindsey-halligan-smithsonian-executive-order/.

Of course we want our museums to reflect our history accurately. But the many controversies about historical facts and their implications have been publicly and transparently debated by historians for decades. It is quite proper to review such representations. Trump’s executive order stated that Halligan “will consult with Vice President JD Vance to ‘remove improper ideology’ from Smithsonian properties.”

The first question is: What is improper ideology, exactly?

The second: Who is Lindsey Halligan, Esq.? (Washington Post above)

The established process of review, appropriate to a free society, has been replaced by a top-down order typical of autocracies.

The point here is that the manner and process of review and reform appropriate to a free society is discarded in the top-down orders of an autocrat.

Some of Trump’s orders reveal enough to know that I oppose them. Trumps tariff proposals reveal a lack of understanding of trade, quite aside from the rules established by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Trump condemns countries with trade surpluses with the US. These are irrelevant—as it is the US trade deficit with the rest of the world that matters—if anything. My trade deficit with Safeway is irrelevant.

Not only is Trump’s reciprocal tariff calculation laughable for its many errors, but other policies directly counter the presumed purpose of his tariffs (though who really knows what that is). His unlawful deportation attempts and cancelling student visa has produced a sharp fall in foreign visits to the US (foreign students studying here has many other benefits for the US as well). These are US exports, generating the money needed to pay for our imports. Why would he do this? This was later reversed, and the student visa reestablished. Or doesn’t he even understand what he is doing? His targeting for deportation those critical of him or Israel is a frightening attack on our First Amendment rights.

His tariff threats, on again, off again, actually seem unrelated to trade objectives. They seem to be bargaining chips for other objectives, whatever those might be. Their unpredictability itself is inflecting damage to our trade and investments. It is a very different (autocratic) approach to trade agreements than provided by the WTO.

Trump’s bargaining style re tariffs may well produce good results six months or a year down the line. But the cost has been the alienation and isolation from our traditional allies (not in our interest), and economic damage in the interim. More alarming it has strengthened China’s world leadership, driving many into closer alliance with it. The proper question is whether his approach or the traditional working though the WTO would have produced better results.

Education, whether in schools or the public square, is vital in free societies. Closing the Wilson Center was a big mistake in my view. I attended many very informative presentations there, often with Abdul Fitrat, former governor of the central bank of Afghanistan (DAB). But most of our think tanks, also presenting excellent and important seminars, are private. Trump wants to dictate what schools teach and what parents must allow or can opt out of for their children. His demands are being challenged in court. What the state can require, and parents can choose, is a challenging issue. Our traditional and more effective approach to its resolution is via public debate—not executive order.

Our cultural scene (opera, ballet, theater, etc.) is an important aspect of a flourishing society. It is quite proper to debate the extent to which our government should help finance it, but not its importance for a healthy, flourishing society. From the settlement of hunter-gatherers into tribes, such culturally binding activities have flourished. I recently watched a very painful film “A Day in the Life” of a woman (former violin player) working seven days a week to remove the rubble left in Dresden after WWII. Anyone contemplating war should examine what was left after previous wars before starting a new one. After the war, Dresden was occupied by the USSR. Interestingly the Russians set up theaters and concert halls to display the richness of Russian culture.

In the US our cultural events are largely financed by the private sector. The Kennedy Center is a federal building and the only U.S. national cultural center. The federal government covers facility operations, maintenance, security, and capital improvements, as the Center is a federal building and national memorial. About 20% of its annual operating budget is paid by the government. The government is not allowed to fund any of its performance activities and costs. Though he has never set foot in the Kennedy Center, Trump replaced its board with his friends and made himself chairman. ???

I strongly opposed Trump’s shut down of USAID, for example. https://wcoats.blog/?s=usaid. I worked for USAID in Iraq and with it in Afghanistan and other post-conflict counties. Their role was vital. The closing of USAID harms American interest.

Let me add one more example of a USAID activity. Its support of the G-17 in Serbia provides one of many examples. In the late 1990s an IMF collogue from Serbia (former Yugoslavia) pulled me aside to explain the group of center-right, free-market economists from Serbia that he was part of—they called themselves the G-17. He explained that the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID helped organize and fund seminars at which G-17 members could discuss the policies they wanted to support and how to achieve them.

“During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, [Yugoslavia’s President Slobodan] Milošević was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes connected to the Bosnian War, Croatian War of Independence and Kosovo War. After resigning from the Yugoslav presidency in 2000 amidst demonstrations against the disputed presidential election, Milošević was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities in March 2001 on suspicion of corruption, abuse of power, and embezzlement.] The initial investigation faltered, and he was extradited to the ICTY to stand trial for war crimes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87.

In the turmoil following Milošević’s replacement, Jimmy Barton (Chief National Bank Examiner of the United States, Retired) and I entered Belgrade on 9/10/2001 (I think—I am no longer sure of the date) to singing and dancing in the streets. As we met with the new government officials, they often gave us their G-17 card with the apology that they had not had time to get new official cards. Thank you EFD and USAID.

Trump also claimed to shut down the Millenium Challenge Corporation, the best foreign aid program we have ever had. He has withdrawn from several international organizations and agreements, and angered our friends and allies, further isolating the US. These are not in American interests.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised no more wars. In his first 100 days in office, he threatened to invade Panama and Greenland and to annex Canada. He has started bombing Yemen without Congressional authorization. He continues to support and help finance Israel’s wars in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. He has withdrawn the US from many international organizations and agreements. We are increasingly isolated with fewer and fewer friends. The US voice in the world no longer carries its earlier weight—all of which has made China stronger and more influential.

To repeat, the longer-run outcome of all this may well be good for us all. There is no knowing that at this point. But the real question is whether good results achieved in this way are better than if achieved via public debate and normal diplomacy?

The courts are increasingly challenging Trump’s disregard for law and due process. What I want to emphasis is that Trump’s autocratic actions via executive orders is very different from our usual public debate over policy seeking as much public understanding and common ground as possible. Such public debate is important for what a policy (or goal of an agency) should be. The internal efficiency with which that policy is implemented is a separate issue and something that a DOGE might well help achieve.

In a letter to U of Chicago alumni, its President Paul Alivisatos stated “As the broader higher education compact is reordered, we should not fear change for its own sake. There is reform to be had—and great opportunity to improve and to achieve more. Yet, how a period of reform unfolds can also cause enormous damage; federal and political overreach and intervention without regard to due process produces profound damage…. We have important interests at stake at this moment, as well as a set of obligations that we must and will honor.”

Trump’s executive order dictates are not an appropriate approach to reforming the scope of government.

Econ 101: Our standard of living

In 1900, US income (GDP) was $4,096 per capita in 2023 dollars, while in 2023 it was $81,695. The US poverty rate fell from 56% to 11.1% over the same period. How was such a dramatic increase in our widely shared standard of living possible? The answer (without explaining how it came about) is increased labor productivity. Each worker has been able to produce more and more and hence earned a higher income.

Putting this differently, more and more people were automated out of their old jobs allowing them to find new ones and produce new things increasing overall output/incomes. Such dynamism does carry the temporary cost of finding new jobs and developing new skills. At any point over the last century that cost could have been prevented by freezing productivity improvements, but that would also have ended the growth in our incomes. Thank heavens such crazies did not win out. But it seems they never stop trying.

The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), the union that represents some 47,000 dockworkers, is threatening to strike if the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), which oversees port operations, goes forward with plans to automate more of these port activities.

“’There has been a lot of discussion having to do with ‘automation’ on United States docks,’ Trump wrote in his post Thursday. ‘I’ve studied automation, and know just about everything there is to know about it. The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen. Foreign companies have made a fortune in the U.S. by giving them access to our markets.’

“’For the great privilege of accessing our markets, these foreign companies should hire our incredible American Workers, instead of laying them off, and sending those profits back to foreign countries,” Trump wrote.” “WP: Trump – port-strike-automation”

Whether out of ignorance or deliberate obfuscation, Trump again misstates who gains and who pays. When foreign ships are unloaded in American ports it is the American consumers who benefit from any cost savings at the ports.  Trump also claims (though he surely knows better) that China would pay for his high tariffs on imports from China.

A tariff, of course, is a tax the US levies at our borders on goods we import from abroad. It’s paid in the first instance by the American importers. Like any other tax, it is added to the price of selling these imports to the American public. It’s very purpose is to reduce domestic demand for such imports in order to encourage (more expensive and less efficient) domestic production of such goods. Please, let’s not stop technical progress and the higher income it enables.

Tariffs

“Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump said [Monday] that on the first day of his presidency he will charge Mexico and Canada a 25% tariff on all products coming into the U.S. He added in a separate social-media post that he would impose an additional 10% tariff on all products that come into the U.S. from China,… That would come on top of existing tariffs the U.S. has already imposed on Chinese goods.

“’This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!’ Trump wrote.” WSJ: Trump pledges tariffs on Mexico Canada and China”

A tariff is a tax on an import. They are permitted by the World Trade Organization when leveed on goods receiving state subsidies in order to create a level playing field for trade. Such global trade has made an enormous contribution to the standard of living around the world.  “Ernie Tedeschi, former chief economist for President Joe Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the North American tariffs would cost the typical American household almost $1,000 per year.” WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

The normal expectation is that the tariff will reduce U.S. demand for the taxed import and encourage its domestic production. But the US labor force is fully employed and can only increase domestic production of the targeted goods by shifting workers from the production of goods the US has a comparative advantage in thus reducing our overall income. Though employment of manufacturing workers has declined in the US, manufacturing output has not because worker productivity has increased. In fact, our imports have not shipped American jobs overseas as increasing productivity has resulted in reduced manufacturing employment most everywhere in the world, including China, surely a good thing. WC: “Trade protection and corruption”

Immediately after Trump’s tariff announcement, the exchange rate of the dollar strengthened. A stronger dollar reduces the cost of imports (but increases the cost to foreigners of our exports), thus undoing to some extent the demand reducing impact of the tariff. But it hurts our exports because of their higher price to foreign purchaser and reduces our overall standard of living.

China and others hit with this tax are likely to retaliate with their own tariffs. “Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020, goods moving among the three North American nations cross borders on a duty-free basis. ‘Obviously, unilaterally imposing a 25 percent tariff on all trade blows up the agreement,’ said John Veroneau, a partner at Covington & Burling in Washington.”  WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

Should Trump actually impose these tariff’s he would (again) be violating the law, which only allows the President to impose tariffs without Congressional approval for national security reasons: WC: “Tariff abuse”

Trump’s threatened tariffs are not even leveed on the goods he wants to restrict (drugs and illegal aliens). Thus, unlike traditional tariffs they would be leveed to pressure Mexico and Canada to take other actions Trump wants. They are bargaining ploys. So at the cost of raising prices and lowering incomes in the US, weakening the global trading rules from which we have benefited so much, and weakening the checks and balances limiting an over extended executive branch, Trump may be playing his bargaining game again. But in my opinion the cost to us and the world trading system is too high.

Econ 101: Trade balance

Everyone understands that we are each wealthier if we buy most of what we consume from others and pay for it with what we specialize in producing ourselves. But at dinner last night one of our guests (Chatham House Rules prevent me from revealing his identity) asked how we can compete with China when their workers are so cheap? The teacher in me rises up to unpack this statement and the related issue of trade balance. It is both complicated and simple.

  1. Are Chinese goods cheaper? Chinese workers are paid in their currency (RMB) and American’s buy China’s output in our currency (USD). If an LED light bulb made in China is sold for 140 RMB is that cheap for American’s? If the exchange rate of RMB for USD is 4 RMB per USD it will cost us $35 per bulb (expensive), but if the exchange rate is 10 RMB per USD it will cost us $14 per bulb (cheap).
  2. So will we buy everything from China? What will the Chinese do with the dollars they receive from exporting to us? They might buy goods from the US (made by workers who used to make LED light bulbs). If the exchange rate is “right”, the Chinese will spend all of those export dollars on imported US products. Trade (imports and exports) will balance.  An exchange rate that makes dollars more expensive in China (RMB cheaper in the US) will decrease China’s imports from the US relative to its exports (a Chinese trade surplus). What will they do with the remaining dollars held in China?
  3. What happens with Chinese trade surplus holding of USD? The Chinese can invest them in the US (buy US Treasury securities, stocks, property, etc.). Or sell them for their own currency driving the exchange rate of RMB for USD down (or up depending on what you put in the denominator). The reduced cost in China of US goods will increase Chinese imports and the higher cost of Chinese good in the US will reduce US imports from China. The Chinese trade surplus (US trade deficit) will vanish (or adjust to the rate of capital flow desired by cross border investors). The incomes of Chinese and American workers will be higher because each will be producing the goods for which they each have a comparative advantage (the win-win of free trade).
  4. Exchange rate manipulation or production subsidies distort the outcome. EU tariffs on Chinese EVs are explicitly set at a level to compensate for Chinese government subsidies of EVs. This is allowed by WTO trade rules to put Chinese and German car manufacturers on a fair, competitive basis. The US’s much higher tariff on Chinese EVs makes no mention of complying with WTO rules (the US again does whatever it wants to the detriment of the global trading system).
  5. Trade balance between US and China is used as a simplification. What matters is the balance between each country and the rest of the world but distilling the world into two countries simplifies the discussion.
  6. Time for the dessert.

Preserving the Global Order

As the number of BRICS member countries grows, the international organizations through which countries cooperate are at risk of fragmenting.  To keep the IMF, World Bank, WTO, WHO, ITU and other international bodies together to perform their financial, standard setting, and coordination functions that have contributed so much to global prosperity, each member must believe that they are fairly represented in such bodies.

Unlike the UN’s one country one vote, members of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, have votes (quotas) that reflect their economic importance. The fundamental criteria for the financial contribution and voting share of each member country in the IMF and WB are the economic size of its economy and its share of world trade and reserves.

When they were established after WWII in 1944, the total size of the IMF was 8.8 billion dollars of which $2.9 billion was pledged by the U.S. giving it a quota (and vote) of 33% of the total. Any major policy decisions or amendments to the IMF’s Article of Agreement require an 85% support. This gave, and continues to give, the U.S. a veto over any important measure it doesn’t like. At that time the U.K. quota of $1.3 billion was 15% of the total and that of France was $0.65 billion or 7.4% of the total.

The Republic of China was an original member of the IMF in 1944, whose seat was transferred to the Peoples Republic of China in 1980 with a quota of 1.2 billion SDR which was 3.1% of the total of SDR 39.0 billion. “What are SDRs?” This was promptly increased to 1.8 billion SDRs (4.6%). The quotas and voting strength of the IMF’s six largest members in 1980 and 2022 were:

                        1980               2022

U.S.           19.83%               16.08%

U.K.             6.94%               4.03%

Germany    5.13%               5.31%

China           4.62%              6.08%

France.        4.57%              4.03%

Japan.          3.96%              6.14%

Over the last 4 decades, China and many other lower income countries have grown significantly. U.S. GDP in 1980 was $9.7 trillion in 2022 dollars while China’s was $1.03 trillion in 2022 dollars.  But by 2022 the US economy had double while Chinas increased almost 14 times. The adjustments in member quotas failed miserably to reflect these changes. The US quota dropped from 19.8% to 16.5% while China’s increased from 4.62% to 6.08%

In 2022 GDPs of the top five were:

  1. United States: $20.89 trillion
  2. China: $14.72 trillion
  3. Japan: $5.06 trillion
  4. Germany: $3.85 trillion
  5. United Kingdom: $2.67 trillion
  6. India: $2.66 trillion

To quote from Wikipedia: “To further rebalance power in the IMF, China appealed for changes that would transfer voting power to developing economies. In 2010, the Chinese executive director of the Fund, Zhou Xiaochuan, addressed the board and asserted that giving more power to the emerging economies was critical for the group’s legitimacy, accountability and long-term health.”

In the IMF/WB annual meetings that just concluded in Morocco have called for an increase in IMF resources but distributed equiproportionately, i.e., with no change in members’ relative voting weight (quotas). This moves member quotas even further away from the basic formula for determining them. Why and what might be the consequence?

The U.S. has dominated the IMFs policies from its inception largely in furtherance of developing and preserving a liberal trading order that has benefited the world. But it is apparently unwilling to give up its veto power (a quota of more than 15%). Such dominance risks corruption over time: “Monopolies”   “The Dollar Again”

But if the governance of the IMF is not seen as fair by its members, they have an incentive to look elsewhere. China understandably wants the status and influence of its increased size. So, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) have started to go their own way with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, and other China lead initiatives. More countries are joining the BRICS. The fragmenting of international norms and rules for cross countries relations threatens to harm global prosperity. As an early example, sovereign debt restructuring agreements are now being held up because of China’s reluctance to play ball with the term agreed by the other sovereign lenders.

U.S. and IMF—wake up. “Goodbye unipolar world and good riddance”

Monopolies

A company that produces a really attractive product or service and does so efficiently and thus at lower cost than can potential competitors, will grow and potentially dominate and even monopolize that market. It is tempting for such very successful companies to seek laws and regulations that protect their dominance by making it harder for potential competitors to enter those markets with lower costs. But as a company enjoys its increasingly protected monopoly, it tends to lose the edge that put it on top in the first place. Its drive to innovate is reduced. It tends to become lazy and even corrupt in the defense of its monopoly position. While economist differ on what policies are best when dealing with a monopolist, there is generally consensus that monopolies are bad in the long run.

The same is true of countries that grow to international dominance. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting unipolar dominance of the United States, the U.S. increasingly behaves like a bully and disregards the rules of international commerce and diplomacy that it helped establish and demands that others follow.

The United States was founded on an extremely well-conceived set of principles designed to protect its individual citizens to lead their own lives and pursue their own flourishing as they each saw fit. The American constitution limited what the government may do to enumerated powers and provided checks and balances on the actions of each branch of government. For the most part these restrictions have held, and our government has provided the defense, protection, and framework needed for our individual flourishing.

But as we gained strength and dominance and especial during our brief period of unipolarity, we increasingly violated the rules we demanded that others follow. For example, we joined others to sponsor the World Trade Organization to establish the rules of fair trade in order to maximize the benefits of higher incomes for everyone made possible by trade.  We properly challenged China for dumping its excess steel on the market as a violation of WTO rules. But President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian, European, as well as Chinese steel in the name of national defense violated WTO rules as well as common sense. And how do President Biden’s multibillion dollar subsidies for domestic semiconductor chip production differ from “China’s state-led, non-market approach to the economy and trade” we object to?

Though the U.S. won most of the cases it brought to the WTO Appellate Body, the WTO’s dispute resolution body, that Body has not been able to function since December 2019 because the US has blocked the appoint of new judges.

But it gets worse. We have rightly condemned Russia for violating the sovereignty of Ukraine by invading it, while overlooking our equally illegal violations or attempted violations of the sovereignty of Cuba, Iraq, and Libya among others.  

But it gets worse still. In reaction to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s accusation that the government of India was responsible for the assassination of Canadian Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil, Adrienne Watson, the White House National Security Council spokesperson, said “targeting dissidents in other countries is absolutely unacceptable and we will keep taking steps to push back on this practice.” Had she forgotten the dozens of such assassinations carried out by the U.S. on foreign soil? Of the more recent was the drone attack in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki and his young grandson on September 30, 2011. Al-Awlaki was an Islamic scholar and lecturing living here in Arlington Va.  Our assassination of Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3, 2020, again with a drone attack, raised considerable international criticism. Soleimani was the Commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We were not at war with either Iran or (at that time) Iraq.

With our near monopoly of political power in the world, the ability of our defense industry to protect and promote its profitable supply of weapons is strong. We can be thankful of their capacity to produce the weapons that defend us. But our military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us of profits however and by whom ever its products are used. Its profits are strengthened and sustained by our forever wars and those we supply. Ike knew of what he spoke.

Of the 2023 FY budget (ending next week) of $1.7 trillion in discretionary spending (yes trillions if you can swallow that), $860 billion (or 50.6%) was for defense. Half of that was paid to the defense industry. Most of that is for weapons. But they provide other services as well. When I was living in Baghdad as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004, Halliburton (the company Dick Chaney had been Chairman and CEO of) provided our meals in the Embassy mess hall (Saddam Hussein’s Presidential Palace). Lockheed alone gets more of its annual revenue from the federal government than the annual GDP of all but the top 81 countries (about half) in the world.

While our constitution’s checks and balances go a long way to protect our government from capture by the defense and other industries, the honestly of our elected representatives (devotion to the interests of their constituents and our country rather than to the size of their corporate contributions) still matters. It is hard to understand otherwise why we send our sons and daughters off to fight and die in foreign lands or encourage Ukraine to fight to the last Ukrainian.

Our government and foreign policy have been corrupted by our unipolar dominance. But our very arrogance—abide by our rules while we do what we want—has and will increasingly weaken our global influence. There are faint signs that we are being to recognize this new reality and tempering our behavior. The demise of our monopoly behavior and our return to fair and proper competition should be encouraged.

It makes sense to restrict trade of important military products. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was right to claim that we should aim for a “small yard with a high fence” to protect military supplies while otherwise maximizing beneficial trade. But the profit motive of our defense industries to expand the size of that yard as much as possible is strong and has been and will be hard to resist.

More on constructive competition

In contrasting our treatment of others as competitors or enemies in my blog on “What to do About China”  I am reminded of the 120 days I spent in Baghdad as an advisor to the Central Bank of Iraq paid for by the USAID and supervised by the US Treasury. Our occupation of Iraq included staff from the US Treasury, USAID, Commerce Dept, State Department, and, of course, the Dept. of Defense. Competition by each of them to do a better job than the others would clearly be win-win making our overall occupation more successful. But too often one agency treated the others as enemies diminishing and undermining their efforts rather than supporting them. My biggest fear with my dual association with USAID and Treasury was that each would see me as on the other side, which would have undermined my effectiveness. Luckily the each saw me as on their own side.  “Iraq-An American Tragedy-My Travels to Baghdad”

What to do about China?

“China’s much anticipated post-pandemic recovery appears to have flopped, with signs of a significant slowdown after decades of supercharged growth and data flashing warning signs.” Bloomberg “China’s failing recovery”

“Signs of deflation are becoming more prevalent across China, heaping extra pressure on Beijing to reignite growth or risk falling into an economic trap it could find hard to escape.”

What, if anything, should the U.S. response be? That depends on whether we see China as a competitor or an enemy. That should depend on our assessment of China’s objectives. Does China want to expand its territory one way or another, or to expand its influence in the global order? China’s behavior might support either assessment.

China claims sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, including the Paracel and Spratly islands, which are also claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. In 1947 China asserted its claims with a map depicting a U-shaped line covering almost 70 percent of the South China Sea, known as the nine-dash line. In 2016, an Arbitration Tribunal rejected many of China’s maritime claims as lacking a basis in international law.

The UK returned Hong Kong to China July 1, 1997, with the understanding that it would be self-governed independently of the Peoples Republic of China for fifty years. China violated this agreement with its full takeover in 2020.

In 1972 President Richard Nixon confirmed that Taiwan was part of the People’s Republic of China but would continue to govern itself independently until it agreed to merge its government with the mainland’s. In the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the U.S. committed to providing defensive weapons to Taiwan to defend itself from invasion (as opposed to the volunteer absorption into the Peoples Republic envisioned in the One China Act). What we provided instead were heavy weapons irrelevant to Taiwan’s defense but prized by America’s defense industries. “Taiwan-China policy assurances military” The U.S. has more recently seemed to even question its commitment to the One China agreement.

These aggressive moves by China are better seen as solidifying its borders (much in the same way the US worries about its borders with Cuba) than military expansions. On the other hand, China joining the World Trade Organization, pressing for representation in the IMF and World Bank that is more reflective of its economic size, and its Belt and Road, Asian Infrastructure Bank and BRICS initiatives reflect China’s desire to gain status in the global system comparable to that of the U.S. In short, they reflect the behavior of a rising economic competitor.

We seem to be treating China as an enemy rather than the trade and economic competitor they see themselves as. Among sportsmen, competition takes the form of doing your best—of being the best you are capable of. Within our economy we rightly see competition as good and healthy. With fair competition, both sides benefit. The world is made wealthier. Kneecapping our competition is the approach of bad guys. I explored this more fully in my blog “Competing with China”

But China is not competing fairly either. We would be wiser to use the mechanisms of the global system of rules to push and pull them into compliance. We should end our own tariff—industrial policy violation of these rules as well. We might start by restoring the dispute resolution body of the WTO. While there will be genuine security justifications for trade restrictions, they should be very limited.  They should not include taxing steel purchased from Canada. Trade is win, win.

A recent G-7 statement clarified that: “We are not decoupling or turning inwards. At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying.” US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stressed this message during her recent visit to China. We should facilitate and encourage China’s economic rise as it contributes to our own. The opposite direction—treating China as an enemy—ends in war.

America’s Unipolar period has corrupted us. We demand that others follow rules that we violate ourselves when we don’t find them convenient. We have become a bully. My hope is that we adjust to the fact that we are no longer the world’s sole superpower by strengthening the rules we helped develop and competing fairly under them: “Goodbye unipolar world and good riddance”

Goodbye Unipolar World, and Good Riddance

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton. The United States has accomplished a lot—a lot of it good—as the world’s indispensable nation.  But as Lord Acton said, power tends to corrupt and as the time of American dominance has gone on its diplomatic skills have eroded. It behaves more and more like a bully that expects to get its way. It is in our interest to recognize and adjust to our diminished relative power and to rebuild our diplomatic, soft power skills of persuasion. It will help us better adhere to the values and rules we preach to others but increasingly ignore ourselves.

In the July, 2023 issue of Foreign Affairs, Justin Winokur offers an excellent review of the adjustments we need to make in The Cold War Trap How the Memory of America’s Era of Dominance Stunts U.S. Foreign Policy “Cold war trap-America foreign policy”

These days our most important international challenge is our relationship with China. While each sovereign nation is entitled to its own approach to its internal governance, its interactions with the rest of the world require mutual understandings and/or agreements. Following World War II, the rules for such cross border interactions have generally been developed by international organizations to which all or most countries are members, such as the UN and its many agencies, the World Bank and regional development banks, and the IMF. To take but one example, the skies full of telecommunications satellites would not be able to serve anyone properly without the rules and spectrum allocations via the International Telecommunications Union.

It is in America’s interest, as well as the interest of most countries, to draw China more fully into the international organizations established after World War II—the Bretton Woods and UN Institutions. “Chinese competition-Asia stability-institutional balancing”  But China is increasingly going its own way and creating its own international organizations. BRICS, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Asian Development Bank, The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Why?

Why have we failed to convince China that its interests are also serviced by joining and cooperating with the liberal international order? When China was admitted to the World Trade Organization on December 11, 2001, and requested help from the IMF with how best to satisfy the WTO’s rules, the IMF sent me. The officials I met with in China told me over and over that there was no differences of opinion in China over where it wanted to go (in joining the liberal international order). The debate was only over how fast to get there. In recent years this has changed. It has changed, in my view, in part because the U.S. has abused its dominance in the world and failed to yield (balance) appropriate power to China.

As I have spent most of my professional life with the International Monetary Fund, let me illustrate these points with the determination of IMF quota’s which is meant to reflect its members voting strength and financial contribution to world trade. A member country’s quota reflects its size and position in the world economy. The basic formula, which provided the base line for quota decisions is:  Quota = (0.50*GDP + 0.30*Openness+ 0.15*Variability  +0.05*Reserves)^K.

But when the IMF was created, the US wanted to ensure that it would dominate it. It insured that some important decisions could only be taken with super majorities. A few even required an 85% majority, such as to adjust quotas, or amend the IMF’s Article of Agreement.  The U.S. was initially given a quota well above that 15% that gave it veto power over these limited policies. As the rest of the world has grown, the size of the US economy relative to the whole world’s output has fallen from 40% in 1960 to 24% in 2019. “US share of global economy over time”  China’s GDP relative to world GDP, on the other hand, rose from 4.5% in 1960 to 16.3% in 2020. Thus, a strict adherence to the IMF’s quota formula should have significantly increased China’s quota and reduced the US quota.

Quoting from Wikipedia: “China has been trying to expand its political and decision-making power within the IMF. The IMF’s voting system weights each country’s vote based on the amount of that country’s monetary contribution to the Fund. China has been trying to raise its quota. In May 1980, the Chinese government appealed to adjust its IMF quota. With approval from the IMF board, the quota of China was increased from 1.2 billion SDRs to 1.8 billion SDRs. China also obtained a single-country seat on the IMF executive board, which expanded the number of IMF directors to 22 members. As of 2017 the quota of China in the IMF was 30.5 billion SDRs, giving it 6.09% of the total vote.

“To further rebalance power in the IMF, China appealed for changes that would transfer voting power to developing economies.[5] In 2010, the Chinese executive director of the Fund, Zhou Xiaochuan, addressed the board and asserted that giving more power to the emerging economies was critical for the group’s legitimacy, accountability and long-term health.” China and the International Monetary Fund – Wikipedia

Currently the IMF quota for the US is 17.43%, remaining well above the critical 15% needed to retain its veto power, while those of other larger economies are China 6.40%, Canada 2.31%, Germany 5.59%, Japan 6.47%, and UK 4.23%. This is not in keeping with the IMF’s base line quota formula.

This exploitation of American dominance is driving China away and dividing global cooperation to the detriment of the whole world, including the U.S. The current U.S. approach to “competing” with China is not consistent with our values nor our long run interest. “Competing with China”

Our economic and political success—the beacon on the hill that has attracted the best and the brightest to our shores—is the result of our individual freedom and rule of law, not our coercive power and its bullyish use. I hope that we wake up before it is too late. “Why do we promote growth in other countries?”