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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS