Monthly Archives: March 2016

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to reduce investments in the PRC: it’s getting harder to get the money back out, this time from foreign exchange controls designed to be limits on how much money in yuan can be exchanged for other currencies, like the US dollar, the British pound, and the Japanese yen.

China’s foreign-exchange regulator in recent months has deployed a new system to monitor individual purchases of foreign funds and has asked banks to reduce foreign-currency transactions. It has summoned bankers to its offices to give guidance and has grilled them when foreign-exchange activity spikes, according to executives at Chinese and foreign lenders.

Nice little bank you got there….

But it’s more than just threats; the government controls are having material impacts on business’ ability to do straight-up cross border business.

A European chemicals manufacturer recently faced delays in Shanghai in obtaining US dollars, threatening its deadline for an overseas licensing payment. The Bank of Tianjin is having trouble getting funds from mainland investors for a planned Hong Kong public stock offering. A water-treatment company struggled to withdraw $2,000 for an engineer to travel to the US.

And

[Hong Kong law firm Harvey Law Corp Managing Partner—Worldwide, Jean Francois] Harvey said a Chinese client is having problems wiring $15 million to a Hong Kong company that for two years has been helping it buy equipment for a South American factory. “There’s no indication that the money will go through,” he said, “and we heard from our client that it was due to restrictions on money transfer.”

It goes on from there.

Stability vs Prosperity and Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

It appears that Mark Carney, Bank of England Governor, prefers stability at the expense of British prosperity and national sovereignty. He said last Tuesday that

uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the coming referendum on Britain’s future in Europe is already being felt in financial markets, and that a vote in favor of leaving could cause a short-term hit to the wider economy.

A possible departure represents “the biggest domestic risk to financial stability,” Mr. Carney said, with potential consequences for Britain’s balance of payments with the rest of the world, its housing market, foreign investment and its banks.

“It is a risk to domestic financial stability, and it has some potential to amplify pre-existing risks to financial stability[.]”

Of course things will be turbulent during the transition from EU member, subject to lots of EU regulation that runs contrary to British law or what the Brits would prefer to be British law (things like being required to spend British taxpayer money as benefits to non-citizens and to non-citizen family members not even resident in Great Britain—Prime Minister David Cameron’s tentative agreement with the EU is only a temporary measure).

Don’t want the uncertainty of the outcome of the referendum? Then Carney should get behind the exit and reduce the uncertainty.

What would the British get from leaving the EU? Quite a lot. London’s financial district would be free to operate on free market principles, not EU rules. Great Britain’s tax laws would be set according to what’s good for Brits and British business and for attracting foreign businesses and investment, not according to protecting precious continental jurisdictions from the evils of tax competition. Great Britain’s private enterprises would be free to operate in accordance with British law and not EU regulation.

What would the British lose from leaving the EU? Those impediments. Not much else.

Staying in the EU would provide a strong measure of economic stability; those rules are established and well understood. But that stability is only intermediate; the EU will dissolve in the foreseeable future. The current refugee flow crisis is not the threat, though, for all the press it’s getting. No, the threat is exactly what the British would be avoiding if they succeed in leaving: economic dissolution. That threat was made manifest by the Panic of 2008 and emphasized by the Greek default crisis. These exposed the utterly differing and irreconcilable economic philosophies of the constituent members.

The transition ensuing from that dissolution will be far more destructive than any sneezes from a Brexit in the next couple of years.

Smart Diplomacy

Posted on by
Reply

Iran has resumed test launching ballistic missiles, in contravention of UN resolutions and of Iran’s nuclear weapons development agreement with the Obama administration and the rest of the P5+1. But here’s the kicker:

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”

“If our interests are not met under the nuclear deal, there will be no reason for us to continue,” Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, warned during remarks delivered to a group of Iranian officials in Tehran.

Senator Mark Kirk (R, IL) has the right of it:

The administration’s response to Iran’s new salvo of threatening missile tests in violation of international law cannot once again be, it’s “not supposed to be doing that.”

And, yet, that’s all John Kerry (D, SecState) has had to say about it.

There’s some smart diplomacy here. Just not by the Obama coterie.

The PRC’s Economic Malaise

Posted on by
Reply

Andrew Browne had some thoughts in a recent Wall Street Journal article. PRC’s Premier, Li Keqiang, wanted to do some serious revamping of the nation’s economic structure and deemphasize a massively overbuilt industrial capacity, shifting the economy more toward consumer production and consumer spending. His words—”This is not nail-clipping; it’s like taking a knife to one’s own flesh”—were reminiscent of his predecessor’s actions. Zhu Rongji eliminated 30 million jobs in an actual overhaul attempt in the ’90s.

Thirty million jobs. That sounds like a lot, but with a workforce of roughly 800 million and roughly 95% employment (because, of course), those 30 million represent just 4% of the workers overall. That’s a sharp cut, but as job cuts go during downturns, it’s not that sharp.

But even that much was too much for Li. Or rather for PRC President Xi Jinping.

[H]igh-level economic policy-making and its practical implementation, once the preserve of the State Council headed by the premier, have increasingly fallen into the hands of Communist Party committees led by President Xi Jinping.

And

…Xi’s political preoccupations: to strengthen the party…to root out challenges to the régime, and to avoid social instability that could in any way threaten the party’s hold on power. If that means delaying unpopular economic adjustments, so be it.

“The party’s hold on power:” read that as Xi’s hold on power, say I. And the people of the People’s Republic can go hang.

It’s Their Fault

Posted on by
Reply

Couldn’t possibly be our fault. Couldn’t possibly be a simple failure to succeed in coordinating schedules.

President Barack Obama’s (D) National Security Council Spokesman Ned Price insists

We were surprised to first learn via media reports that the Prime Minister, rather than accept our invitation, opted to cancel his visit[.]

The meeting was going to coincide with a meeting of the American-Israel Political Action Committee. Never mind that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office was reluctant for the meeting to occur then because the appearance of our Presidential candidates at the AIPAC meeting could create the impression of Israeli interference in our elections.

It stretches credulity for Obama or his NSC to act as though they don’t understand that. That claim is especially not credible given that the Israeli ambassador already had told the White House—Obama—that it was unlikely that Netanyahu would make the trip.