Maybe it was Dubai's 41?C heat. Or perhaps they were inspired by the grandiose engineering projects, such as the first underwater hotel, or the 200 artificial holiday islands shaped like a map of the world.
Whatever it was, over the past week the globe's most powerful finance ministers have shown hitherto unknown creative faculties.
Extraordinary attempts to rebalance world economics with a new version of the Plaza accord (the 1985 agreement that lowered the dollar's value) ventured into uncharted territory when the G7 backed the desirability of "more flexibility in exchange rates -- for major countries or economic areas."
It doesn't sound much, but in effect the US persuaded the finance ministers of the other six major industrialized nations to back its efforts to put the screw on China, whose policy of keeping down the value of the yuan is hurting the US economy. Beijing buys about US$10 billion a month to fix the yuan at roughly 8.28 to the dollar. A powerful lobby in the US blames cheap Chinese exports and its "manipulation" of currency markets for manufacturing woes and has put its case to US President George W. Bush.
"It's one thing for China to say no to America, but to say no to the G7 industrial countries collectively would be more difficult," says Jim O'Neill, an economist at Goldman Sachs.
It was a triumph of US financial diplomacy, according to Secretary of the Treasury John Snow, yet it may backfire spectacularly. Currency markets were turbulent last week, initially granting the G7 its wish by sending the dollar plunging to three-year lows against the yen, and pushing it well down against the euro. But stock markets in Japan, Europe and the US also fell sharply. Had Snow drop-kicked the "strong dollar policy" to the bottom of the Arabian Gulf? Did the finance ministers really agree on who they were targeting?
In fact, almost every country around the table had a different interpretation of what they were signing up to. The Americans thought the text was about China. The continental Europeans thought it was about the Americans. The British thought it wasn't really about anybody. And the Japanese assumed it was about the Europeans.
Snow said the decision was a milestone. The US manufacturing lobby was cock-a-hoop. The US could be seen to be doing something robust about the supposed causes of its jobless situation. Meanwhile, the communique gave IMF Managing Director Horst Kohler an excuse to bash the US for not adopting Europe-style "credible" fiscal rules.
The Japanese, who are the most worried about China's competitiveness, were glad to see pressure on their neighbor. But a senior Japanese official said privately that the reference to "economic areas" was about the EU, suggesting it should be constrained from any attempt to bring down a rising euro.
Japan's approach at the meeting had backfired spectacularly, at least in the short term. All the pressure was placed on the yen as it soared upwards, increasing China's competitiveness. Traders were left wondering exactly when the Bank of Japan would re-enter the market.
Back in Dubai, the currency message was backed with an imaginative "growth agenda." Snow and Gordon Brown had agreed at a breakfast in the summer that each country should outline specific steps to restore confidence in the world economy. Yet this agenda is risked by the US strategy.
"A rising yen and euro may lead to deflation in those areas and curtail growth from exactly where it is needed. And if there's less intervention, that means less demand for US treasuries and higher interest rates," says Ian Morris, chief US economist for HSBC.
China and Japan make their currency interventions by buying up US government debt, known as treasuries. This huge source of demand -- Asian countries own half of all US debt, Japan alone has US$444 billion -- puts downward pressure on interest rates. The risk is that, if the dollar falls back sharply and Asia curtails treasury purchases, the US may find it difficult to finance its debts. But Morgan Stanley's chief economist Stephen Roach says this is precisely the point.
Higher rates should suppress domestic demand growth and help build savings in the US. A weaker dollar will also help stave off deflationary risks. Meanwhile, in Europe and Japan, stronger currencies will reduce competitiveness and force policymakers to grasp the nettle of growth-boosting economic reform.
"Stronger currencies are the functional equivalent of straitjackets: forcing nations or regions to unshackle domestic demand by making internal markets more flexible, businesses more efficient; price-setting mechanisms more competitive. Without such reforms, there can be no global rebalancing," Roach says.
This may be termed the "weapon of mass devaluation" thesis. And it was a risk made worthwhile for the US by domestic political considerations.
"The political cycle means that they are going to look after their own first, but it might come back to bite them in the face," Morris says.
The G7 industrialized nations are clearly nothing of the sort any more.
They are the G7 de-industrializing nations, and the crux of the matter is how they manage the competitive threat and loss of jobs to industrializing behemoths such as China and India. Ultimately such countries need to be included.
For now it is clear that a genie is out of the bottle on currency exchanges. Traders will test the resolve of interventionists like never before.
Gambling is banned on Dubai's mainland: indeed, that was part of the motivation for the construction of artificial island resorts. But in years to come the G7 agreement in Dubai may come to be known as the most spectacular gamble of all.
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at a ceremony on July 30 officially commissioned China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system. The constellation of satellites, which is now fully operational, was completed six months ahead of schedule. Its deployment means that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now in possession of an autonomous, global satellite navigation system to rival the US’ GPS, Russia’s Glonass and the EU’s Galileo. Although Chinese officials have repeatedly sought to reassure the world that BeiDou-3 is primarily a civilian and commercial platform, US and European military experts beg to differ. Teresa Hitchens, a senior research associate at the University of
There are few areas where Beijing, Taipei, and Washington find themselves in agreement these days, but one of them is that the situation in the Taiwan Strait is growing more dangerous. Such a shared assessment quickly breaks down, though, when the question turns to identifying sources of rising tensions. Several Chinese experts and officials I have consulted with recently have argued that Beijing’s increasingly belligerent behavior in the Taiwan Strait is driven mostly by fear. According to this narrative, Beijing is worried that unless it puts a brake on Taiwan’s move away from the mainland, Taiwan could be “lost” forever. They
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) this week came under fire over his speech at a Rotary Club meeting in Taipei on Monday, when he said that Beijing’s military strategy toward Taiwan was “to let the first battle be the last.” If China started a cross-strait war, it would end quickly, without time for other nations to react, he said in his “Cross-Strait Relations and Taiwan Security” address, criticizing President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for saying that she hoped other nations would come to Taiwan’s aid in Beijing’s first wave of attacks. A president should prevent war from happening, not talk about how