Paul Krugman is at it again with his calls, using a model based on what I believe to be an entirely flawed conception of monetary policy at the zero bound, to argue that China’s currency policy is harming the US:
So again, the Fed is moving in the right direction, both for US interests and for the sake of the world as a whole. China is beggaring its neighbors, which in this case means everyone else.
Krugman is continuing his call that we begin threatening to engage in protectionism through legislation aimed at Chinese products. Of course, this is wholly unnecessary. Matt Yglesias has the money quote:
The Chinese government’s discomfort with monetary stimulus is understandable. Monetary stimulus plus Chinese currency policy will equal an undesirably large amount of inflation in China. That means that in order to avoid an undesirably large amount of inflation, Chinese leaders will need to engage in a more rapid currency readjustment than they want to. That, however, merely underscores that unilateral monetary action is the right way for the US government to handle our concerns about China’s currency policy. We don’t need to threaten them, or bribe them, or cajole them, or go to “currency war” or anything. What we need to do is to adopt monetary policies that are appropriate for our economic situation. The Chinese will learn to deal with it, and in the longer term we’ll all be better off.
Which highlights the idea that beggar-thy-neighbor policies are anything but zero-sum games when it comes to money. All currencies can’t devalue against each other simultaneously, but all currencies can depreciate relative to goods and services…and that has a stimulative effect. Depending on the relative slope of your economy’s SRAS curve that either means higher inflation or higher real output. Monetary easing in the United States would likely mean higher real output in the US…but it would likely mean higher inflation in China.
What exactly does that do? It gives China cover to adjust their exchange rate policy. A policy of easy money in the US actually benefits both the US and China (assuming that China will follow an optimal policy regime).
What is embarrassing is that we live in a rich country, with a fiat currency, and we are still having a conversation about how to get the economy off the ground…and furthermore contemplating highly detrimental policies in order to do so.

5 comments
Comments feed for this article
Tuesday ~ October 19th, 2010 at 12:38 am
RickRussellTX
I’m mystified at this almost fairy-tale belief that if the Chinese would just stop “undervaluing” their currency and their products, somehow US industry would spring forward and magically recover.
If they are truly doing this, then we should thank them — we’ve gained access to more products at lower prices than our industry can produce, and that frees up resources for other purposes. The money we’re saving on bad electronics, machinery with questionable metallurgy, bulk clothing and cheap plastic household goods can go toward college educations, prescription medicine, etc.
Of course, the reality is that US industries wouldn’t really tolerate the low margins on most Chinese products — our time is better spent discovering drugs, designing major IT integration projects for domestic and foreign firms, architecting software systems, making medical equipment, building high-end diesel engines and construction equipment, etc. Things that the Chinese actually can’t do, or at least can’t do by themselves without substantial foreign direction.
Tuesday ~ October 19th, 2010 at 8:01 am
For win-win solutions - Economics -
[...] animus. So today I'll outsource the job of pushing back against him. Read Scott Sumner and Niklas Blanchard. And read Matt Yglesias:The Chinese government’s discomfort with monetary stimulus is [...]
Tuesday ~ October 19th, 2010 at 9:16 am
For win-win solutions [The Economist] | DreamInn
[...] animus. So today I’ll outsource the job of pushing back against him. Read Scott Sumner and Niklas Blanchard. And read Matt Yglesias: The Chinese government’s discomfort with monetary stimulus is [...]
Wednesday ~ October 20th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
RN
Niklas Blanchard writes: “Paul Krugman is at it again with his calls, using a model based on what I believe to be an entirely flawed conception of monetary policy at the zero bound..”
Hmm…
Paul Krugman is one of the most celebrated and influential economists of the era, professor at Harvard and Princeton, Bates Clark and Nobel winner.
And you are….? Some nobody who’s done nothing from….Bellevue College? Anyone else never heard of it?
I know who I’m betting with.
Wednesday ~ October 20th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Niklas Blanchard
Krugman argues points that are very inconsistent with eachother;
1. That the world is in a liquidity trap, and monetary policy is impotent in a liquidity trap.
2. That the Europeans shouldn’t complain about loose US monetary policy affecting exchange rates, they should just adopt a properly expansive monetary policy of their own.
3. That the US can’t offset a strong (domestic) Yuan policy (which, btw, has nothing to do with the currency peg).
One of these statements is true, which makes the other two false.
I’m in general agreement with Krugman, as well…but that doesn’t mean there is absolutely no room for disagreement. The fact that the economic profession (even the center-left) are not comfortable with what Krugman is saying is the smoking gun.