1/10

This is a really tough problem to resolve, especially if the massive increase in inflows from the trade and financial accounts are sustained, as I expect they will be well into 2021.

Clearly the PBoC would like to see the RMB gradually...

2/10

strengthen. This would keep financial markets stable and promote rebalancing, but the RMB has already strengthened a lot, and this puts unwanted pressure on exporters and “international circulation”.

Although PBoC reserves have been flat, other state-controlled Chinese...
3/10

banks have bought large amounts of dollars, but this is expensive. If these banks have half a trillion dollars of exposure, for example, they are losing at least $15-17 billion annually on negative carry, plus another $20-30 billion just this year from the rise of the RMB.
4/10

Beijing seems also to be trying other measures to slow the rise. The regulators are relaxing capital controls on outflows. In mid October the PBoC cut to zero the reserve requirement ratio for banks doing FX forward trading. This requirement was created in 2018 to reduce...
5/10

downward pressure on the RMB. In late October it suspended the counter-cyclical factor in RMB fixing, which was introduced in 2017 also to reduce downward currency pressure. But in both cases while the RMB dropped a few pips on the news, it quickly resumed its upward climb.
6/10

As the problem with inflows becomes more urgent, Beijing has only few possible responses:

1) It can allow the RMB to appreciate rapidly, which would hurt exporters (partially mitigated by the positive effect on consumption) and could destabilize the financial system.
7/10

2) It can continue to intervene directly or indirectly, running ever larger losses on its position.

3) It can try to discourage financial inflows by lowering interest rates, but this might just increase debt and worsen asset price bubbles, and could even backfire...
8/10

if it causes foreign investors to pile into a surging stock market.

4) It can relax rules on financial and investment outflows, and even encourage Chinese companies to go on a buying spree abroad, although this becomes a problem if foreign investors ever decide to exit...
9/10

the local markets.

My guess is that it will do some combination of appreciation, intervention, and above all a relaxation on financial and investment outflows. The main point I guess policymakers are learning is that while it is one thing to promise to internationalize...
10/10

the RMB to gain prestige, this must inevitably come with real costs, including losing control of the value of the currency and of the capital account – and usually, if the financial system is not in great shape, at the worst time possible.

More from Michael Pettis

More from Economy

Latest @SouledOutWorld articles:
(Article Thread)

All in one convenient location to access.


https://t.co/TuyltZTyW0


https://t.co/XJJRvpLRQE


https://t.co/NeeFCfMkP2


https://t.co/yFtbIgqzzm
Long rant: This @WSJ article bemoaning the decline of price theory is really worth highlighting. The economic theories and so called "laws of economics" that the WSJ consistently and religiously defends, are the source of their authority, power and privilege.


So called economic "theories" like "you get paid exactly what you are worth" and "markets are perfectly efficient" and "when wages rise, jobs fall" and "raising taxes on the rich kills jobs and growth" and "increasing justice decreases economic efficiency" and...

"Government intervention in markets always creates more harm than good" and "any regulation that constrains corporations kills growth and productivity", etc etc are effectively a protection racket for the rich. It is a set of internally consistent and mathematized conjectures...

That are all demonstrably nonsense. But getting people to accept these "theories" as laws of nature and immutable, timeless truths is the most effective way our current economic elites have found to maintain and enhance the status of the powerful and persuade the weak and poor...

to shut the fuck up and accept their lot in life. Now, FINALLY, some economists- are actually beginning to look at the real world evidence to determine whether these propositions actually describe anything real here on planet earth. Let me save you some time. The answer is NO.
It's always been detached, and it's always made the real economy worse.

[THREAD] 1/10


What is profit? It's excess labor.

You and your coworkers make a chair. Your boss sells that chair for more than he pays for the production of that chair and pockets the extra money.

So he pays you less than what he should and calls the unpaid labor he took "profit." 2/10

Well, the stock market adds a layer to that.

So now, when you work, it isn't just your boss that is siphoning off your excess labor but it is also all the shareholders.

There's a whole class of people who now rely on you to produce those chairs without fair compensation. 3/10

And in order to support these people, you and your coworkers need to up your productivity. More hours etc.

But Wall Street demands endless growth in order to keep the game going, so that's not enough.

So as your productivity increases, your relative wages suffer. 4/10

Not because the goods don't have value or because your labor is worth less. Often it's actually worth more because you've had to become incredibly productive in order to keep your job.

No, your wages suffer because there are so many people who need to profit from your work. 5/10

You May Also Like