Like many developing countries, China's huge foreign exchange surplus has flowed back to the United States in various ways. Through the financial system, through the tacit understanding between governments, through attracting virtual investment from developing countries to the United States, and through the "high rate of return" brought by various financial innovations, the United States has recovered a large number of deficit dollars back to the United States. With the inflow of capital account to make up for the outflow of current account, the United States not only obtained goods, but also returned dollars. It is difficult to withdraw money, and it is even more difficult to withdraw money globally. However, the United States has successfully achieved this strategy.
China has become the largest creditor country in the United States, with foreign exchange reserves exceeding $3 trillion. The United States owes China a huge amount of dollars, including about 65,438+0 trillion dollars in government bonds and nearly 500 billion dollars in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds. Behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the US government, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds are indirect US government bonds. The sum of the two exceeds 1? 5 trillion dollars. Poor China is the biggest creditor of rich America. Behind the once prosperous prosperity of the United States is the shadow of the poor groups in China. How much is China's huge national reserve worth? Creditor's rights themselves have no value. The value of creditor's rights depends on the debtor's desire and ability to repay debts, the way to repay debts and the actual amount of repayment. Based on these factors, a $65,438+000 bond may be worth $65,438+000, 50 cents or nothing.
China lent the United States a large sum of money and naturally cared about the safety of his property. Will the United States repay its debts?
The answer is simple: the United States has no intention of repaying its debts. America's strategy is to maintain world hegemony with the world's financial resources. Those who think that market economy is a free economy based on contract must wake up on this issue. The strategy of decoupling the dollar from gold is because it is unwilling to pay its debts with gold, but only borrows money and does not pay it back. Borrowing is not in the national interest of the United States. If you want to pay your debts, why decouple from gold! Since 197 1, the globalization strategy and financial globalization strategy of the United States have been based on the dollar borrowed but not returned. Promoting globalization, financial globalization and controlling IMF, World Bank and WTO are just to defend this monetary hegemony. In the national game, the market principle of debt repayment sometimes seems pale and powerless.
Take China's national debt as an example. A few years ago, due to some actions of the United States in the Taiwan Strait, some people in China proposed to retaliate against the United States by selling US Treasury bonds. Mr. Greenspan, who had stepped down at that time, shouted to investors: Don't worry, even if China wants to sell, there is no buyer. Many people in China paid little attention to this sentence, but American investors were comforted by it. As a retired official, Mr. Greenspan may have more freedom of speech. His words may represent the position of the US government or tell the market reality. This passage may have several meanings: (1) The US government has no desire to buy back bonds from China. (2) Even if China intends to sell US Treasury bonds, major investment banks and commercial banks in the United States will resist. (3) There will be no dealers in the United States to represent this kind of business. Without the dealer's agent, it is impossible to enter the market. In a word, China couldn't find a buyer, and these hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds were deposited in China's hands. If China wants to sell, there is only a seller, and there is no market at a price. Moreover, the seller only sells outside the market. In other words, when the US government sells these bonds to China, it is a final transaction, and it has no intention of redeeming these bonds from China. American economist andre andre Gunde Frank once pointed out:
He (Uncle Sam) paid China and other countries with practically worthless dollars. Especially poor China, provided hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods to rich Uncle Sam for free. Then, China turned to use these US dollars to buy US Treasury bonds. These national debts are worthless except for paying a certain interest. As far as we can see, these bonds will never be converted into cash or redeemed in whole or in part, and in any case, they have depreciated a lot compared with Uncle Sam (due to inflation).
Not only US Treasury bonds, but also other US dollar reserves held by China are debts owed by the United States to China. Historically, the United States has never repaid such debts. 197 1 year, in order to avoid the responsibility of paying debts with gold, the United States decoupled the dollar from gold and devalued the dollar on a large scale; In the 1980s, in order to clear the debt owed to Japan, the United States used the international united front to force the yen to appreciate. The historical record of the United States not paying its debts is vivid. After the dollar is decoupled from gold, there are many ways for the United States to really pay its debts. For example, opening American industry and allowing creditor countries to buy American enterprises in large quantities. Allowing countries with dollar reserves to buy industries in dollars is a form of repaying debts with assets with intrinsic value. From the market principle, because the United States is unable to pay its debts, it is normal to pay debts in kind (enterprises). Since 1973, Japan, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and Europe have all held large amounts of US dollars. In order to realize their creditor's rights, these countries try to buy the controlling shares of major American enterprises and let the United States pay off its debts with physical assets (enterprises) with economic value. The United States is firmly opposed to this. In the strategy of supporting hegemony with debt, the United States owes huge debts to many countries in the world. If the creditor countries in the world could use these claims to buy or even control the American economy, the United States would have been dismembered and its economy controlled, just like many third world countries. The so-called hegemony has long been a clay-footed giant. Based on this strategic consideration, as a supporting measure of deficit strategy, the United States has strict procedures for foreign capital to acquire American enterprises, and resolutely refuses foreign capital to industries with strategic significance. This strategy is in the national interest of the United States.
Market principles must conform to national interests. We must stick to what is in the national interest and oppose what is not. In the face of national interests, market principles are not "universal values".
Another manifestation of the United States' failure to pay its debts is the high-tech blockade of China. From the perspective of pure economics, paying debts with technology or technical products is also a way to pay debts. The United States refused to repay its debts with high technology.
Take China's acquisition of United Oil as an example. The United States Congress held a heated debate on this issue and finally rejected the merger. This case is a landmark case. It shows that the United States does not recognize foreign debts, and creditors can't use these claims to buy physical assets in the United States, but can only buy US Treasury bonds or other securities.
Take China's sovereign funds as an example. When China established CIC, the United States was worried that it was time to pay its debts, and that China would control American entities through dollars with no intrinsic value. American political and business circles, especially Congress, have had a heated discussion about this. The core of the discussion is that China should not be allowed to control American enterprises. This fierce opposition from the United States has undoubtedly put a lot of pressure on CIC. Finally, CIC's investment strategy is to make long-term passive investment. In many investment cases, there are many restrictions on China, even forcing China to give up the management right of shareholders and accept a long non-circulation period, and so on. This kind of investment, in fact, is to exchange one piece of paper for another piece of paper and one kind of creditor's rights for another. This case reflects the American debt strategy from one aspect: debt can be rolled over in many ways, but it will not be repaid. China can neither exchange its huge dollar reserves for gold, nor buy physical assets on a large scale, but can only invest in virtual assets.
Friedman, the Nobel laureate in economics and the father of monetarism, expounded this theory in the simplest words. Decades ago, the rising foreign trade deficit in the United States made many people in the United States uneasy and afraid of paying their debts one day. The gentleman stood up and said that the dollars sent by the foreign trade deficit will eventually flow into the United States. He believes that many criticisms of the trade deficit are unfair, and these criticisms are aimed at promoting macroeconomic policies that are beneficial to export industries. Friedman, who emphasized the free market, did not want the United States to embark on an export-oriented road. He said that he believes that as long as the money supply brought by the deficit can flow back to the deficit country (the United States) in some form-directly or indirectly-the foreign trade deficit is harmless. He went on to say that the "worst case scenario" is that these currencies will never flow back to deficit countries (the United States). It is the worst case that the money sent out cannot be collected. However, he added that this worst-case scenario is only the best-case scenario for deficit countries. Why?
He said that countries that earn dollars will never return their money to the United States, and the effect is the same as burning foreign exchange. For the United States, this is of course the best situation. It's like I bought your things with white bars, and then you hid them forever, never cashed them for me, and never entered the circulation. This is equivalent to burning these white strips. This is what Friedman called the worst-case scenario. As he clearly pointed out, this is the best situation for the United States.
Friedman pointed out two paths for countries with dollar reserves: either recycling them back to the United States; Or burn it. There is no third way, and there is no way to pay off debts. Financial liberalization means recycling these dollars back to the United States and recycling world capital to the United States. This is the essence of neo-liberal international division of labor and globalization. This is why the foreign trade deficit of the United States has been rising since the 1980s, and economists at home and abroad are amazed. However, the established national policy of the United States remains unchanged, the deficit is still rising, and American hegemony is as stable as Mount Tai.
Is China's US Treasury bonds a financial weapon? Due to China's large purchases, the price of US Treasury bonds rose and interest rates fell. The huge amount of cheap capital provided by China enables the US government to raise cheap debts to support its huge government expenditures, including military expenditures; Enable American enterprises to raise cheap capital and obtain high profits; In this way, American consumers can get cheap consumer loans to make up for the lack of income. From a purely economic point of view, some people think that China has mastered the lifeblood of the American economy. Once China sells a large number of US Treasury bonds, the price of US debt will fall, interest rates will rise sharply, the financial order in the United States will fall into chaos, and even an economic crisis will occur. It seems that this $3 trillion holds the key to the United States and is a financial weapon. According to this view, the more generous China pays, the more dependent the United States is on China. We already know the attitude of the US government towards debt. This is true in peacetime, especially in extraordinary times. The US government will not let China realize the strategic goal of selling these bonds on a large scale and impacting the US financial order. China's U.S. Treasury bonds must become a financial weapon on a simple premise: someone must buy them. Does this premise exist?
Does not exist. In this case, it will instruct American financial institutions to refuse to accept bonds sold in China on a large scale. Historically, American financial institutions have two traditions: greed and patriotism. They know that they can earn more money only if the United States is the most powerful country in the world. From the institutional point of view, American banks do not enjoy what some domestic economists call "complete autonomy" and complete "clarity" of property rights at critical moments. When advocating the privatization of property rights, some people in China think that as long as it is private, even the king can't get in, and private rights are absolutely above public power. Although American banks are privately owned, the government can change management, suspend dividends, stop business or even confiscate banks for the national interest. The relevant provisions of the United States clearly stipulate that once this happens, the shareholders' meeting has no right to veto the government's decision. Moreover, no court can accept the appeal of shareholders. From a traditional and institutional point of view, as long as the US government prohibits these banks from buying bonds from China, China's foreign exchange reserves will not become a financial weapon.
The so-called financial market includes sellers, buyers and traders, as well as market makers. If you want to sell American bonds, you must bring what you have to the market through these dealers. Without these dealers, things can't even enter the market. Therefore, it is obvious that if we really want to sell American debt at one blow, not only will there be no buyers, but even the market will not be able to enter.
The international financial market is a place where national interests are played. Only in line with national interests can the market be reasonable. It is hard for those who put market principles above national security not to be the last losers in the process of globalization.
To say the least, even if the United States allows China to sell bonds in large quantities, it will be a double-edged sword. From the pure market point of view, as the whole world knows that China is the largest creditor of American bonds, it has trillions of dollars of US Treasury bonds. Once you sell them, these bonds will fall, and as a result, you will lose a lot of capital first. You didn't "break the enemy 1000", but you will lose 800 first. The first wave will hit our own financial system. Many financial institutions and individuals in China who own these US Treasury bonds will be insolvent or even bankrupt because of the large-scale depreciation of such assets. Many domestic institutions, enterprises and individuals investing in US Treasury bonds will face the dilemma of losing all their money. Therefore, China's financial system was disturbed first. This kind of chaos in the financial system will inevitably bring many economic, social and political problems.
China's foreign exchange reserves can neither be cashed out by the United States, nor are they financial weapons. Can China sell such bonds in the international financial market? What is the liquidity of these bonds owned by China? Liquidity refers to whether you have the ability to buy and sell assets in the market without causing huge fluctuations in asset prices. Liquidity is the basic feature of an efficient market. Liquidity is determined by the relationship between supply and demand. When you accumulate a certain commodity, so that there is not enough market capacity to digest the goods you hoard, you will face liquidity problems-things cannot be sold or must be sold at a reduced price. This phenomenon is really too much in ancient and modern times, at home and abroad. From a purely market perspective, China's accumulated US bonds and US dollar reserves have far exceeded the limit that an efficient market can accommodate. China's foreign exchange reserves exceed US$ 3 trillion, accounting for 1/3 of the global foreign exchange reserves. Who can and who is willing to take this debt from China? As far as American financial institutions are concerned, even if others are willing to bear it, it is difficult for American financial institutions to jointly raise this huge extra fund.
A large number of U.S. Treasury bonds can neither be redeemed nor become financial weapons, and there is a liquidity problem as a whole. They have almost become accounting symbols, and the U.S. government debt needs to roll through the new debt of the U.S. government, which is equivalent to "precipitating" forever. The rapid growth of GDP is actually an accounting symbol whose economic value is difficult to evaluate! Time is a friend of America. This dollar reserve will become an inflation tax in the United States through inflation for a long time to come. If China does not come up with corresponding countermeasures, time will erode this part of China's national reserves through inflation.
This model of pursuing "virtual growth" deserves serious reflection.
If the original text is helpful, please adopt it.