When China National Offshore Oil Company tried to buy the US firm UNOCAL two years ago, it set off a political firestorm in the US. When Dubai Ports World bought Britain's P&O Steam Navigation Company, the fact that P&O operated ports inside the US led to more controversy.
One would think that a country like the US, with a current account deficit of roughly US$800 billion a year, would realize that such a yawning external gap is inevitably financed only by selling off assets, which means that foreigners with money acquire ownership and control of US-based businesses.
But the US -- or at least Congress and the media -- doesn't get it. Americans evidently hope for a world in which they have feckless deficit-generating fiscal policies, a very low private savings rate and a moderate rate of investment, all financed by foreign capital whose owners are happy to bear the risks yet have no control over their assets.
One might think that foreign investors would quake in terror at these terms and shy away from dollar-denominated assets. But this has not been the case. High oil prices have created huge export revenues for Middle Eastern governments, which still want to park their earnings in US assets. The same is true of Russia, whose oligarchs, as well as the huge state investment fund that Finance Minister Alexi Kudrin has created, also want to invest their oil revenues in the US.
As for Asia's governments, with China in the lead, the US remains the importer of last resort. The key to their development strategy is to put migrants from the countryside to work making exports destined for the US market. They doubt that an alternative development strategy based on boosting domestic demand would succeed. Thus, the real values of their currencies must be kept low relative to the dollar, which means that their reserves now invested in the US must continue to grow.
Someday, of course, this will come to an end. Perhaps Asian real currency values will rise sharply as a result of a burst of inflation in Asia. Perhaps the dollar will collapse and there will be a burst of inflation in the US as the Federal Reserve Board decides that temporarily abandoning its price-level peg is a lesser evil than the unemployment fallout that will result from a dollar collapse and interest rate spike.
A government that buys political risk insurance by placing an ever-growing stock of reserve assets in dollar securities guards against some dangers. But it is exposed to other risks, especially if it confines its investments to that slice of the asset pool, US Treasury and high-grade corporate bonds, that US politicians are comfortable having foreigners own. Nominal bonds are not well hedged against inflation and, over the long run, assets that are claims to cash without effective control are highly vulnerable to financial vultures. Prudent foreign government and private investors would find some way to diversify.
But how? Buying other countries' bonds would mean abandoning the goal of keeping real currency values low against the dollar. Buying up whole enterprises triggers angry speeches in the US Congress. What are needed are intermediary organizations that will grant a measure of control to foreigners, allow diversification across a wider range of US-located assets, and yet still appear 100 percent American to US politicians.
Enter the Blackstone Group.
China's US$3 billion investment in Blackstone, while insignificant relative to China's US$1.3 trillion in reserve assets -- a sum headed for US$1.5 trillion by the end of this year and likely to hit US$2 trillion sometime in 2009 -- is but a toe dipped in the water, a test run. At the start of the process, China will have small and indirect ownership stakes in a great many US enterprises, and the odds are that the usual objections will be absent. China will gain a measure of risk diversification, reduce the price pressure that has kept earnings on its foreign exchange reserves low and avoid running into political trouble. Blackstone will gain extra cash to deploy and extra fees.
Some observers think that the US political backlash against foreigners "buying up America" is what will bring the current configuration of global imbalances to an end. Deals like China's investment in Blackstone postpone that backlash, but not for long: US$3 billion is equivalent to what China accumulates in reserve in less than three working days.
The question following China's Blackstone investment is this: How far can this process go? And how much control will US investors ultimately realize they have given up?
J. Bradford DeLong, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, was assistant US Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS