Bergsten: the imbalance threat is still there
Monday, June 28, 2010 at 12:06AM 
Fred Bergsten op-ed in FT.
The key logic:
Global imbalances are about to jump again. New estimates from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggest that the sharp decline in the exchange rate of the euro, along with tepid European growth, will produce eurozone surpluses of at least $300bn (€251bn, £208bn) annually within the next few years. The tightening of fiscal policies throughout Europe in response to the crisis, along with the new balanced budget amendment in Germany, will both depress domestic demand and require easier monetary policy that will weaken the euro further . . .
Whatever the intent, these European developments will have effects similar to the overt steps taken by other major countries to enhance their trade competitiveness. The most extreme case is the massive intervention by China and surrounding countries to keep their currencies severely undervalued. Other emerging markets are likewise seeking to expand further their war chests of foreign exchange by running large external surpluses. . . The eurozone has joined this “new mercantilism” and the result will be a sharp rise in global imbalances.
The counterpart increases in deficits will again accumulate mainly in the US as no other country could attract the requisite financing. The large deficit countries within the eurozone must reduce their imbalances. Along with the large surpluses of China and other Asian countries, the new European surpluses will probably double the American current account deficit beyond its previous record of $800bn in 2006. The US could then maintain its recovery only by continuing to run large budget deficits and again tolerating debt-financed consumer demand. This is the opposite of the rebalancing strategy agreed by the Group of 20 leading economies as critically important for sustaining global expansion and reiterated by its finance ministers last weekend.
Many regard this scenario as a desirable resolution of the current European crisis . . .
There are three glaring problems with this vision, however, all centred on the US. First, the sharp escalation of its own domestic and international imbalances would intensify the risk of future market attacks on the dollar and US financial assets. As soon as Europe and other alternatives regain their acceptability to investors, the unsustainability of the US situation would return to centre stage at even more dangerous levels.
Second, the higher imbalances themselves could sow the seeds of a new financial crisis just as they helped sow the seeds of the last crisis . . .
Third, a renewed explosion of the US trade deficit could well trigger the outbreak of protectionist trade policies that has been largely avoided to date.
My sense of the past two decades: every crisis of the global economy triggers fixes that eventually beget their own crisis, but nowadays that cycle is getting faster and faster because of the growing hyperconnectivity and interdependence.
I would expect more debates on ever-more ambitious rules.
Reader Comments (1)
Economic unsustainability wasn't really addressed at the weekend's G20.
On this theme:
First, the consequences for order in the global economy may be horrific if the former advanced nations with high civilisational costs - including the US - are allowed to go bankrupt. However is a majority of nations prepared to accept the centralisation that might prevent the chaos? Inviting surplus nations to spend more is going nowhere. Finally, who'll pay for global public goods? [including, for example, revamped UN and enforcement]