US Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke has blamed net inflows of capital from the rest of the world, especially China, for a global saving glut that is driving up the US current account deficit.
Unfortunately, some commentators have echoed this seemingly plausible but outrageously silly idea.
For example, an HSBC economist in Hong Kong, Qu Hongbin (
In all events, the observations cited above reflect a belief that China must lower its domestic saving rate to fuel its economic growth and correct its trade imbalance. Doubtless, part of this argument's credibility lays in China's domestic saving rate of 46 percent of earnings.
But Bernanke and his followers confuse cause and effect in suggesting that an "excess" amount of global savings is the cause of the US' current account deficit, despite low interest rates.
As it is, their macroeconomic analysis is blind to basic economic realities. In the first instance, they are unable to unravel why savers continue to pour money into banks despite ultra-low deposit rates on offer. It turns out that the inflow of funds into banks is the result of monetary pumping by most central banks, which has generated a massive bubble inflated by excessive formation of credit and liquidity.
Bernanke's assertion is also flawed for implying that "excess" savings can damage an economy since "too much" capital can be accumulated. But capital formation is an essential element of economic growth that drives higher living standards.
As such, the implication of his argument is that there is too much growth and people are too well off for their own good. It is a little shocking that such a notion passes intellectual muster.
In all events, the conceptualization offered by Bernanke conveniently ignores the role played by the US Federal Reserve Board in causing the US trade deficit to rise while the dollar has weakened (the current account deficit of the US last year was US$668 billion, or 5.7 percent of GDP, with further rises expected).
In fact, these arguments are redolent of the warmed-over notion of John Maynard Keynes known as the "paradox of thrift." Like Keynes, Bernanke confuses the demand for money (hoarding) with savings and suggest that large cash balances reduce overall demand. But increased savings remain available in the financial system to be lent to investors.
As such, the inflows of foreign funds into the US are not savings, nor can they be fully explained by a strong domestic US capital market. Nor can it be said that the strength of the US economy is pushing up the current account deficit into record territory. If this were the case, the value of the dollar would not have recorded the general weakening trend that was reversed only recently (the US dollar is up by about 7 percent against a basket of major currencies so far this year).
The growing US current account deficit has been driven by ultra-loose monetary policy. America's central bankers have overseen an increase in the money supply (measured as M1) by 27 percent from January 2001 to last December.
As such, the accumulated dollar reserves held by central banks in countries with trade surpluses with the US reflects a type of hoarding that does not reflect increased savings. But these trade surpluses are temporary, since they eventually will be used to purchase imported goods or dollar-based assets like Maytag and Unocal.
The cheap credit policy of the Fed has created an excess supply of dollars domestically and internationally. Low interest rates in the US led to higher spending and nominal incomes, which drove up the demand for imports, causing the trade deficit to balloon. With the dollar pouring relentlessly into foreign exchange markets, the trend has been for it to depreciate against other currencies and many commodities, like oil and gold.
And so it is that this flood of cheap credit, courtesy of US central bankers, has created and kept afloat a gigantic, global Ponzi scheme. Like all pyramid schemes, there is a false sense of shared prosperity. Americans get cheap imports that hold down domestic consumer prices. And foreigners are happy, thinking that they are enjoying export-driven growth while accumulating more dollars, or paper debt mostly denominated in dollars.
Eventually, foreigners will find that their addiction to bits of green money in exchange for their own hard work is doing damage to their economies. Presumably, China will recognize this before it is too late.
But this would require that it abandon the neo-Mercantilist logic that supports the obsession with a "weak" currency to promote exports.
Artificially low interest rates have spawned a global credit bubble that has caused various "imbalances." These include a global housing boom and a trade deficit in the US that is responsible for the massive foreign exchange holdings in economies with trade surpluses. In the case of China, it has also generated an unsustainable and temporary burst of growth in its export-oriented industries. The excess liquidity is also responsible for higher asset prices, especially gold and oil.
History reveals that all "bubbles" either deflate or burst. In either case, an economic slowdown occurs that requires the liquidation of misguided investments that involve unsupported productive capacity.
It is both interesting and troubling to recount the history of Asia's export-led powerhouses. The bursting of Japan's bubble in 1989 ended a long period of high economic growth that was followed by a long period of low growth that continues to this day.
And then East Asia's "miracle" economies hit a wall in 1997 and 1998 that burst their bubbles. It should be rather clear that China is next, so the most pressing question becomes, when?
Christopher Lingle is visiting professor of economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own