marți, 28 iulie 2009

"CHIMERICA" şi viitorul Război Rece dintre SUA şi China


Scoţianul stabilit la Harvard, Niall Ferguson (foto), e unul dintre cei mai grei istorici ai momentului din lume. Preocupat de istoria evenimentelor financiare, a scris, printre altele, The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild. Anul trecut a publicat The Ascent of Money, o carte ce încă se mai dezbate în mediile academice, şi în care - pe lângă scrierea unei istorii superbe a creditelor şi băncilor - a lansat conceptul "CHIMERICA", menit să caracterizeze fuziunea dintre cele două mari economii ale lumii contemporane. Sau, cum se mai exprimă Ferguson, "The Chinese did the saving, the Americans the spending. The Chinese did the exporting, the Americans the importing. The Chinese did the lending, the Americans the borrowing."
Într-un interviu acordat lui Nathan Gardels, de la Los Angeles Times, Ferguson face câteva evaluări cu privire la destinul acestei spectaculoase fuziuni.
"Gardels: The Obama administration is seeking to borrow billions from the Chinese to finance its stimulus and bailout packages to get the economy going again. What if the Chinese don't buy those Treasuries? Why wouldn't they?

Ferguson:
Let's look at the numbers. China's holdings of U.S. Treasuries rose to $801.5 billion in May, an increase of 5 percent from $763.5 billion in April. Call it $40 billion a month. And let's just imagine the Chinese do that every month through this fiscal year. That would be a credit line to the U.S. government of $480 billion. Considering the total deficit is forecast to be around $2 trillion, that means the Chinese could conceivably finance less than a quarter of total federal government borrowing (whereas a few years ago they were financing virtually the whole deficit). The trouble is that the Chinese clearly feel they have enough U.S. government bonds. Their great anxiety is that the Obama administration's very lax fiscal policy plus the Federal Reserve's policy of quantitative easing (in layman's terms, printing money) are going to cause one or both of two things to happen: The price of U.S. bonds could fall and/or the purchasing power of the dollar could fall. Either way the Chinese lose. Their current strategy is to shift their purchases to the short end of the yield curve, buying Treasury bills instead of 10-year bonds. But that doesn't address the currency risk. [...]
I also see a day within the next five to 10 years when the Chinese will feel ready to remove their capital controls and allow their own currency, the renminbi, to develop as an international currency. At that point the Chimerican marriage really will be over. And, after all, that's what Moritz Schularick and I always said would happen. We called it "Chimerica" because we though that such an unbalanced relationship would eventually prove to be a chimera.

Gardels: What are the global strategic implications of such a divorce?

Ferguson: Imagine a new Cold War but one in which the two superpowers are economically the same size, which was never true in the old Cold War because the USSR was always a lot poorer than the USA. Or, if you prefer an older analogy, imagine a rerun of the Anglo-German antagonism of the early 1900s, with America in the role of Britain and China in the role of imperial Germany. This is a better analogy because it captures the fact that a high level of economic integration does not necessarily prevent the growth of strategic rivalry and ultimately conflict.
We are a long way from outright warfare, of course. These things build quite slowly. But the geopolitical tectonic plates are moving, and moving fast. The end of Chimerica is causing India and the United States to become more closely aligned. It's creating an opportunity for Moscow to forge closer links to Beijing."
Istoria personală a lui Niall Ferguson, la http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

4 comentarii:

  1. Corect! Dar chinezii, daca nu China, sunt inca cu mult mai saraci chiar si decat americanii loviti de criza. Iar ei nu sunt inca in stare, in China, sa aiba in vreun fel grija de saracii lor, nici cat supa saracului, foarte bine reprezentata in America neoprotestanta si/sau catolica. China imperiala din trecut nu prea a dus razboaie de cucerire. De ce ar face-o acum, cand a pornit oricum la cucerire lenta, prin achiztii de parti ale economiei occidentale? Razboiul despre care vorbesc domnii a inceput deja intre China si Europa, iar chinezii castiga, putin cate putin. Saptamana trecuta guvernul chinez a anuntat ca sprijina financiar tendintele de achizitii globale ale China Telecom, Bank of China si alti giganti....

    Iar in SUA tin in mana finantarea bugetara. Cu toate astea, inclusiv cu taikonautzii, nu sunt inca in stare sa raspandeasca bunastare pe propriul teritoriu. Si aici este, intr-o era in care nici chiar ei nu mai pot bloca informatia, calcaiul lui Achile din propria curte....

    Dar daca vom fi cumva nevoiti sa vorbim chineza in urmatorii zece-cincisprezece ani? Nu e chiar imposibil....

    RăspundețiȘtergere
  2. Tare comentariul! Multumesc frumos!

    RăspundețiȘtergere
  3. Da, ma indoiesc ca in viitorul apropiat, asta insemnand cel putin 30 de ani, va exista vreun conflict China - restul. Competitia dintre China si SUA nu poate fi decat economica. Exista si acolo un rezervor de nationalism, dar tot puterea de cumparare va decide.
    Centrul de putere se muta, dupa cum pare, spre Asia. Nu neaparat datorita crizei asteia falsificate.
    Razboiul rece este doar in farfuriile chinezilor de rand, chiar daca sunt un miliard si ceva. Dar pana la urma, in fiecare an termina o facultate circa 6 milioane de chinezi. Si nu la Spiru Haret, desi poate au si ei una. Castigul intelectual va conduce la un castig economic.

    RăspundețiȘtergere
  4. Da, se pare. Eu ma ingrozesc in legatura cu ce a a spus Ferguson in interviu: faptul ca chinezii vor constata ca obligatiunile pe care le-au cumparat de la americani nu mai fac doi bani, si raman in brate cu ele.

    RăspundețiȘtergere

Faceți căutări pe acest blog

Postări populare