China Books

Postcards from Tomorrow Square by James Fallows

ALpostcardsfromtomorrow.jpg

James Fallows is National Correspondent for The Atlantic magazine. He has been in China since 2006, writing articles for the magazine and an excellent blog.

His report on Chinese State control of the Internet, The Connection Has Been Reset, is best explanation yet published of the mechanisms of net censorship here.

Fallows was chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and has written nine books including National Defense which won the American Book Award for non-fiction. This month, he has a new book out called Postcards from Tomorrow Square: Reports from China.

Fallows has given Danwei permission to reprint an excerpt from his book below, and was kind enough to write an introduction to the excerpt. The book is available on Amazon.

Postcards from Tomorrow Square is a collection of essays about the subjects and themes the author has been exploring in his research and writing for The Atlantic over the last two years.

Below is an extract from the book published with permission from the author together with a brief introduction written for Danwei:

Postcards from Tomorrow Square: Reports from China

by James Fallows

Introduction:

As the financial crisis of 2008 became the worldwide economic crisis of 2009, the mainstream Western media began noticing the 'bargain' China had made with developed economies, above all the United States, that led to imbalances that helped cause the crash.

This passage of Postcards is part of an attempt to explain not simply the political calculation behind this 'grand bargain' but also the day by day mechanics through which it worked.

The passage picks up with an interview in which Lawrence Summers is commenting on the pattern through which a country full of poor people, China, kept sending money to a country full of rich people, the United States:


“From a distance, this, to say the least, is strange,” Lawrence Summers, the former treasury secretary and president of Harvard, told me last year in Shanghai. He was referring to the oddity that a country with so many of its own needs still unmet would let “this $1 trillion go to a mature, old, rich place from a young, dynamic place.”

It’s more than strange. Some Chinese people are rich, but China as a whole is unbelievably short on many of the things that qualify countries as fully developed. Shanghai has about the same climate as Washington, D.C. — and its public schools have no heating. (Go to a classroom when it’s cold, and you’ll see 40 children, all in their winter jackets, their breath forming clouds in the air.) Beijing is more like Boston. On winter nights, thousands of people mass along the curbsides of major thoroughfares, enduring long waits and fighting their way onto hopelessly overcrowded public buses that then spend hours stuck on jammed roads. And these are the showcase cities! In rural Gansu province, I have seen schools where 18 junior-high-school girls share a single dormitory room, sleeping shoulder to shoulder, sardine-style.

Better schools, more-abundant parks, better health care, cleaner air and water, better sewers in the cities—you name it, and if it isn’t in some way connected to the factory-export economy, China hasn’t got it, or not enough. This is true at the personal level, too. The average cash income for workers in a big factory is about $160 per month. On the farm, it’s a small fraction of that. Most people in China feel they are moving up, but from a very low starting point.

So why is China shipping its money to America? An economist would describe the oddity by saying that China has by far the highest national savings in the world. This sounds admirable, but when taken to an extreme — as in China — it indicates an economy out of sync with the rest of the world, and one that is deliberately keeping its own people’s living standards lower than they could be... China’s savings rate is a staggering 50 percent, which is probably unprecedented in any country in peacetime. This doesn’t mean that the average family is saving half of its earnings — though the personal savings rate in China is also very high. Much of China’s national income is “saved” almost invisibly and kept in the form of foreign assets. Until now, most Chinese have willingly put up with this, because the economy has been growing so fast that even a suppressed level of consumption makes most people richer year by year.

But saying that China has a high savings rate describes the situation without explaining it. Why should the Communist Party of China countenance a policy that takes so much wealth from the world’s poor, in their own country, and gives it to the United States? To add to the mystery, why should China be content to put so many of its holdings into dollars, knowing that the dollar is virtually guaranteed to keep losing value against the RMB? And how long can its people tolerate being denied so much of their earnings, when they and their country need so much? The Chinese government did not explicitly set out to tighten the belt on its population while offering cheap money to American homeowners. But the fact that it does results directly from explicit choices it has made — two in particular. Both arise from crucial controls the government maintains over an economy that in many other ways has become wide open. The situation may be easiest to explain by following a U.S. dollar on its journey from a customer’s hand in America to a factory in China and back again to the T-note auction in the United States.

Let’s say you buy an Oral-B electric toothbrush for $30 at a CVS in the United States. I choose this example because I’ve seen a factory in China that probably made the toothbrush. Most of that $30 stays in America, with CVS, the distributors, and Oral-B itself. Eventually $3 or so — an average percentage for small consumer goods — makes its way back to southern China.

When the factory originally placed its bid for Oral-B’s business, it stated the price in dollars: X million toothbrushes for Y dollars each. But the Chinese manufacturer can’t use the dollars directly. It needs RMB — to pay the workers their 1,200-RMB monthly salary, to buy supplies from other factories in China, to pay its taxes. So it takes the dollars to the local commercial bank — let’s say the Shenzhen Development Bank. After showing receipts or waybills to prove that it earned the dollars in genuine trade, not as speculative inflow, the factory trades them for RMB.

This is where the first controls kick in. In other major countries, the counterparts to the Shenzhen Development Bank can decide for themselves what to do with the dollars they take in. Trade them for euros or yen on the foreign-exchange market? Invest them directly in America? Issue dollar loans? Whatever they think will bring the highest return. But under China’s “surrender requirements,” Chinese banks can’t do those things. They must treat the dollars, in effect, as contraband, and turn most or all of them (instructions vary from time to time) over to China’s equivalent of the Federal Reserve Bank, the People’s Bank of China, for RMB at whatever is the official rate of exchange.

With thousands of transactions per day, the dollars pile up like crazy at the PBOC. More precisely, by more than a billion dollars per day. They pile up even faster than the trade surplus with America would indicate, because customers in many other countries settle their accounts in dollars, too.

The PBOC must do something with that money, and current Chinese doctrine allows it only one option: to give the dollars to another arm of the central government, the State Administration for Foreign Exchange. It is then SAFE’s job to figure out where to park the dollars for the best return: so much in U.S. stocks, so much shifted to euros, and the great majority left in the boring safety of U.S. Treasury notes.

And thus our dollar comes back home. Spent at CVS, passed to Oral-B, paid to the factory in southern China, traded for RMB at the Shenzhen bank, “surrendered” to the PBOC, passed to SAFE for investment, and then bid at auction for Treasury notes, it is ready to be reinjected into the U.S. money supply and spent again — ideally on Chinese-made goods.

At no point did an ordinary Chinese person decide to send so much money to America. In fact, at no point was most of this money at his or her disposal at all. These are in effect enforced savings, which are the result of the two huge and fundamental choices made by the central government.

One is to dictate the RMB’s value relative to other currencies, rather than allow it to be set by forces of supply and demand, as are the values of the dollar, euro, pound, etc. The obvious reason for doing this is to keep Chinese-made products cheap, so Chinese factories will stay busy. This is what Americans have in mind when they complain that the Chinese government is rigging the world currency markets. And there are numerous less obvious reasons. The very act of managing a currency’s value may be a more important distorting factor than the exact rate at which it is set. As for the rate — the subject of much U.S. lecturing — given the huge difference in living standards between China and the United States, even a big rise in the RMB’s value would leave China with a price advantage over manufacturers elsewhere. (If the RMB doubled against the dollar, a factory worker might go from earning $160 per month to $320 — not enough to send many jobs back to America, though enough to hurt China’s export economy.) Once a government decides to thwart the market-driven exchange rate of its currency, it must control countless other aspects of its financial system, through instruments like surrender requirements and the equally ominous-sounding “sterilization bonds” (a way of keeping foreign-currency swaps from creating inflation, as they otherwise could).

These and similar tools are the way China’s government imposes an unbelievably high savings rate on its people. The result, while very complicated, is to keep the buying power earned through China’s exports out of the hands of Chinese consumers as a whole. Individual Chinese people have certainly gotten their hands on a lot of buying power, notably the billionaire entrepreneurs who have attracted the world’s attention. But when it comes to amassing international reserves, what matters is that China as a whole spends so little of what it earns, even as some Chinese people spend a lot.

The other major decision is not to use more money to address China’s needs directly — by building schools and agricultural research labs, cleaning up toxic waste, what have you. Both decisions stem from the central government’s vision of what is necessary to keep China on its unprecedented path of growth. The government doesn’t want to let the market set the value of the RMB, because it thinks that would disrupt the constant growth and the course it has carefully and expensively set for the factory-export economy. In the short run, it worries that the RMB’s value against the dollar and the euro would soar, pricing some factories in “expensive” places such as Shanghai out of business. In the long run, it views an unstable currency as a nuisance in itself, since currency fluctuation makes everything about business with the outside world more complicated. Companies have a harder time predicting overseas revenues, negotiating contracts, luring foreign investors, or predicting the costs of fuel, component parts, and other imported goods...

This is the bargain China has made — rather, the one its leaders have imposed on its people...

There are currently 10 Comments for Postcards from Tomorrow Square by James Fallows.

Comments on Postcards from Tomorrow Square by James Fallows

This is an interesting post. But I think it could be much improved by adding some photos of a topless Zhang Ziyi on a private beach.

Very interesting post. Now couple this with the NWO agenda and China's role it, and you will understand why the government never had any intention from the start to give the control to its citizens.

It's just not part of the equation.

Government control VS citizen freedom is actually almost correctly tuned here in China. The US and other nations are now working hard to make sure we all meet in the middle, to create the big happy family of the future.

Global Capitalist Gangsterism mixed with socialism.

The perfect world.

ha ha. 赞.

Good stuff. I do think, however, the examples of school heating and crowded dorms are not simply a result of government underspending (though that's definitely a big part). Alot of private and expensive schools have no heating for relatively cold winters, and cram students into closet sized dorms. It's not simply a matter of government spending, it's also an issue with consumers. I've never heard of Chinese parents demanding a school install heating or insist on dorm rooms with only two occupants, nor have I seen Chinese private schools offer these things as a premium despite having exorbitant tuitions. I'm sure there is some creme de la creme school in Shanghai that does this, but by and large these aren't concerns for Chinese students. In fact, I suspect that many parents think that these hardships 1) build character, 2) keep students from getting lazy about their studying and 3) remind them fondly of their own schooling.

Jim articulated very well what had been sporadically mentioned by other China Hands, making it easier for readers’ understanding (of the whole scheme with his clever use of the Oral-B example). But the nuanced implication of China ultimately being a “currency manipulator” requires some further mental validation. While this may indeed be the case technically, wouldn’t this be a smart step-by-step nation-building strategy on the part of China? In addition, besides America, other countries do not necessarily feel that China is manipulating the game either (although they feel that it’s a different rule), especially when they (such as Japan and South Korea) have been scoring a huge trade surplus with China.

An interesting story of Oral-B. But the author obviously can’t do his math. First, commercial banks can’t handle such a huge volume of China’s export and import. Secondly, let’s compare the 2 cases.

A. Factories exchange currencies with commercial banks. Commercial banks take in US dollars and give out RMB. This process doesn’t generate new money.
B. Factories ultimately exchange currencies with Chinese central bank. Chinese central bank takes in US dollars and gives out RMB. This process generates money because RMB to the central bank is nothing. They print money. That is to say, over 1 billion dollars are generated by this process every day. The money invested in US actually comes from nowhere but China takes a piece of ownership of the US.

Of course, there cannot be such an easy trick to get rich. It will take a longer time to explain what is behind this.

I always thought Summers is a super smart person. How wrong I was.

In the US, or any country, who are the lenders, the top earners or average people? Does Bill Gates lend money to you or does he borrow money from you?

Good luck Obama, with Summers if he said that!
Good luck the readers of the book. hopefully, it is not all smart nonsense.

just...WOW at the previous three comments.

a longer and slightly different version of the excerpt reproduced above was published **here** in The Atlantic Monthly a while back, if anyone's interested.

Fallows does a nice job explaining a rather complicated subject to the layperson.

He skips over several final steps in explaining China's "high national savings rate," however, and how that differs from household savings (which are also high in China).

I think the explanation is quite bias and oversimplified. If China would spend all that money, as the author suggests (in schools, hospitals, and so on), inflation would increase and economy could be easily overheated (something the Government have been trying to avoid since 1989).

Chinese Government can be cruel, but not stupid (not regarding economy). Dollars are one of the safest investment in the world (have you seen what happenned all over the world during the current economic crisis??) and also a political strategy. Is a good way to get interconnected with American economy.

Well, there are many others aspects to talk about, but I think the explanation by James Fallows, although easy to read and interesting, is oversimplified.

China Media Timeline
Major media events over the last three decades
Danwei Model Workers
The latest recommended blogs and new media
laomo2010x80.jpg
From 2008
Front Page of the Day
A different newspaper every weekday
From the Vault
Classic Danwei posts
+ Culture and corporate propaganda in Soho Xiaobao (2007.11): Mid-2007 issues of Soho Xiaobao (SOHO小报), illustrating the complicated identity of in-house magazines run by real estate companies.
+ Internet executives complain about excessive Net censorship (2010.03): Internet executives complain about excessive Net censorship at an officially sanctioned meeting in Shenzhen.
+ Crowd-sourced cheating on the 2010 gaokao (2010.06): A student in Sichuan seeks help with the ancient Chinese section of this year's college entrance exam -- while the test is going on!
Danwei Archives