More old news

Thomas Nast: "The Comet of Chinese Labour" (1870)

The use of cheap foreign labour to undercut unionised American workers and benefit big business, is not new. But as this cartoon shows, it is easy, perhaps politic, to focus on the foreigner, who after all is merely trying to earn a living like the rest of us, and deserves decent treatment, out of common humanity.

"Pacific Chivalry" (August 7 1869)

How do we get a balance between the advantages of international trade, and the obligation of each State to look after its own people?

The gold question

Here's a couple of articles by Julian D. W. Phillips at GoldForecaster.com. They're extracts and the entire text is only available if you subscribe to the site.

But because they are freebies, and have much interesting and relevant information, I reproduce the extracts here. The first is a response to the recent sale of some gold reserves by Switzerland. It appeared in BullionVault on June 29:

WITH THE Swiss central bank selling 250 tonnes of its gold reserves, the classic question has to be asked again, what is the price of gold? If we answer that it's worth a certain number of Dollars, then we have to ask the next question:

Just what is the price of a Dollar?

Is the US Dollar such a reliable a store of value that it can be used as a measure of gold's value? To ask would be to question the very foundation of the paper currency system. Can one trust the Dollar or even the international monetary system? It’s all a question of degree.

The US government itself holds mainly gold in its reserves, because it is the issuer of the world’s reserve currency. This does imply that it is completely dependent on its own currency, the Dollar, in the global economy. As the foundation of the world’s monetary system, should this currency lose the confidence of its own or other nation’s citizens, the international money system – and trade relations across the world – will be damaged severely. It is thought that this process is well under way.

The Eurozone community’s Central Bank drew off 15% of its reserves in gold from its members. This does not mean it intends to only hold 15% of its reserves in gold, nor does it imply that there is a rigid exchange rate between gold & the Euro. But the question of how to measure 15% of reserves is raised.

From the beginning of the Central Bank Gold Agreement, the European Central Bank decided to sell a fixed tonnage of 235 tonnes of the reserves it inherited from its member banks in return for paper currencies. Ostensibly, this was to keep gold's proportion in the ECB's reserves roughly fixed. The ECB is fully aware of the dangers of measuring gold in the Dollar – and in the Euro for that matter – but for the sound functioning of our paper-currency world, it is crucial that gold be subject to measurements in paper currency terms, and not the other way around.

With gold now higher from seven years ago, bullion is now around 25% of the ECB's reserves. Perhaps that's a level the Frankfurt policymakers prefer?

Germany, who gained the right to sell up to 500 tonnes of its gold under the CBGA, has not taken this option yet, citing that “gold is a useful counter to the swings in the Dollar.” Of course, a doubling in the price of gold since making this decision is paying off handsomely. We commend the pragmatism of the German Bundesbank; its reserves are there for a rainy day. They are not a pension fund scheme requiring profitable investment.

Certainly, growing a nation's reserves through investment and trading can be a secondary objective, but it should never take over first place. The reserves have to be credible in times of distress, and they have to acceptable to all trading partners.

Germany is aware that the times they are a-changing, and so it is keeping one eye on the future of the global economic and monetary order – and guarding against it.

Italy has no plans to sell any gold, which is unsurprising given the very poor history of the Italian Lira. They too have seen several currencies come and go in the last one hundred years, so they have few illusions about the joys of compound interest. After all, adding noughts to a currency doesn’t make it more valuable. It’s only the buying power that counts.

So will the Dollar today, with interest added over the next decade or two, be worth more than today’s equivalent in gold in a decade or two?

The Swiss Franc has always been one of the most stable of the globe’s currencies, based upon one of the most stable and constant of economies. In times of global war or uncertainty, this peaceful anti-war country becomes itself a ‘safe haven’ for foreigner’s savings. So it is almost a source of safe money and financial security in itself.

The Swiss concept of a rainy day contains far less moisture than most other countries fear. Switzerland is therefore financially more secure and less dependent on its reserves than other countries, whilst also being small enough to adjust its reserve holdings within the foreign exchange markets capacities at present. With the mix of gold and currencies in the Swiss National Bank's portfolio, you can be sure they have covered their backs on the risk front and stand to gain either way the cookie crumbles.

It is of little account whether the Swiss sell some more gold or not. We see their latest move – announcing the sale of 250 tonnes by 2009 – as a gesture of support for the paper currency system. The SNB no doubt sees it as a gesture to protect its overall reserves portfolio.

Again a key question: Why sell gold at all – or more pertinently, why sell a little gold and retain sufficient for rainy days ahead? It is to ensure the retention of value in the overall portfolio. The SNB is not the getting rid of the gold content therein.

Clearly Switzerland – with its constantly sound position as banker to the wealthy of Europe, alongside its dependence on the banking industry – has a vested interest in a mix of global paper currencies. It retains a greater vested interest than those nations with an unsound Balance of Payments, smaller reserves, and facing greater economic risks in the global economy. Besides the United States, nations now suffering a poor balance of payments include Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Czech Republic, Poland, India, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, Hungary, Turkey, South Africa and many others.

The big question: will gold have a greater real value in times of distress than yield earning national currencies? In the last world war, what value did the Deutschmark – or indeed the US Dollar –have internationally? Remember, forgery is one of the acceptable weapons of war. And what value did gold have? No contest.

With economic power shifting Eastwards, and the Asian nations growing away from their dependence on the US economy, it is inevitable that reserve currency dependence such as we are used to with the Dollar is now changing. It is fragmenting, with other currencies coming onto the scene and with national interests clashing and exerting pressure on the different leading world currencies.

Should these pressures grow beyond a certain almost indefinable point, then paper currencies will not garner the same level of confidence as they do now, and the unquestionable international reliability of gold as a measure of value will ascend further still.

Prime Minister Brown of the UK went the same way that Switzerland is, once again, going to go. Looking for a more profitable content to the UK’s gold and foreign exchange reserves in 1999, the UK paid a heavy price that continues to grow as the gold price rises. Did Brown act for political reasons in support of the Euro and the more controllable paper currency system? We believe Switzerland may be following the same line of reasoning as Brown did then.

After all, if we measured the proceeds achieved from the last sale – and the total value plus the interest thereon – what would the shortfall be against today’s value of gold?

The mix of foreign exchange and gold reserves is essentially a gamble on the future.

The second is issued today on GoldSeek:

As the move to keeping what nations have already Protectionism is in full swing. This will inevitably disturb the currency world, who quite rightly will look to something that will protect them from the rising volatility in the currency markets alongside seeping confidence from the U.S $. This ‘something’ will include gold and gold investments. Both Protectionism and Capital Controls will enter the scene as this happens as testified to by history.

Will the States do such a thing? Of course it would. The games played to prevent China acquiring U.S. oil companies with reserves in Central Asia demonstrated this aptly, last year. U.S. patriotism will ensure this happens wherever it is obvious. The necessary legislation is in position already, albeit in a seemingly unrelated form. It is always hard for Politicians to pass unpopular or freedom-inhibiting measures, so they are best attached to causes that persuade individuals and Congress to accept such limitations, such as the recent powers over troublesome individuals in Iraq. This paves the way for full control over financial markets of all types. Here is an example of how a popular cause can be used in this way from the White House itself.

“Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people……….. In these previous Executive Orders, I ordered various measures to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.

My new order takes additional steps…………by blocking the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing……… The order further authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to designate for blocking those persons determined to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for.

I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, the authority to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of my order. - “ GEORGE W. BUSH “

Such moves seem reasonable in this case. Our reason for the inclusion of this quote is to clarify just how quick and easy it is to impose restrictions on the spending of the U.S. $ in the hands of any person, institution or nation, not acceptable to the U.S. Administration, [whether he be a foreign national or a U.S. citizen, just as it is in any other nation’s hands [Whether it be Germany, or China itself or any other nation – this is the power a politician has always].

Capital Controls

In all the historic instances of either Protectionism or Capital Controls, but in particular Capital Controls, such measures were and can be imposed overnight and became an instant unchangeable reality. Protectionism appeared to be the most reasonable and less dramatic but produces softer but similar consequences in each case. Applied globally [and nations hit, usually respond by imposing their own protectionist measures] they rupture the smooth flowing of trade and finance.

Capital Controls are more draconian than Protectionism however broadly spread, causing huge swings in currency values, so are halted as quickly as possible so as not to damage what is left of a nation’s economy. However, in the case of Britain, where a dual currency system was instituted it stayed for a couple of years. In South Africa where Exchange Controls have been present for more than 30 years now, the Capital Control component lasted for around 20 of these years. In both cases a main component of these controls covered investments of all kinds, loans and any transaction of a Capital nature. In both cases the “discount” on the value of the sales of shares for the repatriation of Capital reached 30%.

Bear in mind that as far as we can see ahead Asian and other nations’ surpluses will continue to burgeon. As they become so bloated that they pose a threat to the $ by the sheer risk of their movement from the U.S. Consequently the possibility of even a partial exit of foreign nation’s surpluses from the $ becomes almost inevitable. So, the nation will, at some point, just have to impose Capital Controls, if only over the removal of foreign nation’s surpluses from the Treasury market.

If such Capital Controls were imposed in the U.S., which would be an almost certainty at some point in the future as money floods from the country, the entire global money system would be irreparably damaged and a flight to hard assets [lead by gold, silver and other precious metals] certain. The break in confidence in currencies themselves would be savage.

Much to chew on here.

No easy way out for the US economy

Martin Hutchinson at Prudent Bear gave his view on Monday - the way out of the crisis will either be long and difficult, or short and painful:

...the choice is between a short sharp depression, albeit presumably less severe than 1929-33 (unless the forces of protectionism take a hand as well) or a lengthy period of stagflation like the 1970s, probably with a deeper dip than 1973-75. The third possible pattern, a prolonged period of stagflation like Japan in the 1990s, now seems rather unlikely.

Protectionism dressed up as concern for worker's rights, the environment

The Detroit Free Press reports on new terms of trade set by America which require that Panama and Peru "...maintain and enforce five basic international labor standards: freedom of association for workers, the right to collective bargaining, and eliminating forced labor, child labor and discrimination in employment." They must also "adhere to environmental protection standards in their manufacturing."

Next in line for this treatment is Korea - but will such terms apply to China? Don't expect too much, Motown: remember Vice Premier Wu Yi's warning two days ago - "Attempts to politicize trade issues should be resisted." Wait till China's car industry really gets going.

Meanwhile, let's see what transpires in next week's resumption of the Strategic Economic Dialogue talks between the US and China, for which Wu Yi's Wall Street Journal essay on May 18 is an advance keynote-setter. Since she'll also be representing the Chinese side there, I don't expect much to be decided in America's favour.