[Paleopsych] NYT: Another Drink? Sure. China Is Paying.

[Premise Checker]

Another Drink? Sure. China Is Paying.
New York Times, 5.6.5
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/business/yourmoney/05view.html

    By EDUARDO PORTER

    GUESS who's paying for America's spending binge - for the ballooning
    credit card bills, the scramble for homes, the country's gaping
    budgetary hole? Poor countries have become the financiers of the
    United States, fueling one of the most extravagant consumption drives
    in world history.

    From 1996 to 2004, the American current account deficit - which
    includes the trade deficit as well as net interest and dividend
    payments - grew to $666 billion from $120 billion, swelling the
    nation's demand for foreign financing by $546 billion.

    The cash has come mostly from what the International Monetary Fund
    defines as emerging markets or developing countries - nations that
    have piled up mountains of cash even though most of their citizens are
    poor. High on the list is China, whose per-capita gross domestic
    product of $1,300 last year was a thirtieth that of the United States.
    Others are Russia, where G.D.P. per head was $4,100, and India, where
    it barely topped $600.

    The current accounts of developing countries swung from a deficit of
    $88 billion in 1996 to a surplus of $336 billion last year - a $424
    billion change that has covered some four-fifths of the increase in
    the deficit of the United States.

    This pattern troubles some policy makers in the United States. In
    speeches in March and April, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve
    governor nominated by President Bush to be chief economic adviser,
    argued that a main reason for America's swelling external deficit is
    "the very substantial shift in the current accounts of developing and
    emerging-market nations, a shift that has transformed these countries
    from net borrowers on international capital markets to large net
    lenders."

    The poor-country money, Mr. Bernanke said, pushed the current account
    of the United States deeper into the red. As the money arrived, it
    first lifted stock prices, encouraging both consumption and
    investment. When stocks tanked, it moved to the bond market, fueling
    the housing boom and yet more spending.

    There's nothing inherently wrong with taking money from poor places -
    it's not as if the United States is stealing it. Developing countries
    are providing the funds willingly.

    But it is rather odd. Conventional economic thought suggests that
    funds should flow the other way. Capital-rich industrial nations like
    the United States, where workers already have a large stock of capital
    goods to work with - like high-tech factories and advanced information
    technology networks - should be sending money to places rich in labor
    but with a meager capital stock.

    Developing countries, of course, use this money to grow out of
    poverty, investing in their own factories and schools. And precisely
    because capital is scarce and labor abundant, money invested in these
    countries should achieve a higher return.

    "For the developing world to be lending large sums on net to the
    mature industrial economies is quite undesirable as a long-run
    proposition," Mr. Bernanke said.

    So what's going on? The efforts of China and other developing
    countries to keep their currencies from rising against the dollar help
    explain why the flow of global money is trumping conventional wisdom.
    Yet other forces are at play. The climb in oil prices, for one, has
    produced big gains for countries like Nigeria, Russia and Saudi
    Arabia, which have put much of the cash in dollar assets.

    Most important, running a current-account surplus has become a matter
    of self-defense throughout the developing world.

    Many of the poor countries that are now lending money to richer ones
    previously were big borrowers and spenders themselves. Then they were
    hit by a series of financial crises. Starting with the currency
    collapse in Mexico in 1994, and continuing with the Asian currency
    crisis of 1997, the Russian debt crisis of 1998, the Brazilian
    currency devaluation of 1999 and the Argentine default of 2002,
    developing countries experienced large-scale capital flight, which
    forced painful devaluations and sharp economic contractions.

    Naturally enough, they took measures to reduce the chance of further
    jolts. Countries stricken by crisis or just trying to avoid it
    tightened their belts. They stimulated exports and inhibited imports -
    working to keep their exchange rates low. They reduced domestic
    investment and paid down foreign debt.

    And they amassed vast foreign reserve war chests to protect themselves
    in case investors ever decided to bolt again and take their capital
    with them. Russia's international reserves, for instance, mushroomed
    to $124 billion at the end of 2004 from $18 billion at the end of
    1997. India's jumped to $126 billion from $24 billion over that
    period.

    Last year alone, according to the Institute of International Finance,
    a lobby group of big banks, international reserves of developing
    countries grew nearly $400 billion.

    The good news for the United States is that these forces are unlikely
    to change direction imminently. In an interconnected world, where
    investors can move billions across oceans at the touch of a button,
    these countries have little reason to shift strategies.

    Guillermo Calvo, the chief economist of the Inter-American Development
    Bank, who has seen his share of financial crises in Latin America, put
    it succinctly: "Every country seeks more security. The only thing they
    can do is build up their war chest." The United States gets to spend
    it.