Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

What Does China Have to Gain By Keeping Their Currency Undervalued?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 31 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
2,028 Posts
Points 51,580
limitgov posted on Sun, Nov 22 2009 8:21 PM

Aside from making their exports more attractive, what does China have to gain by keeping their currency undervalued?

It seems as if this is hurting them more than it helps them.....so why would they do this?

  • | Post Points: 65

All Replies

Top 25 Contributor
3,739 Posts
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sat, Nov 28 2009 12:07 AM

krazy kaju:

Also, the Chinese government gets to build huge reserves in gold and foreign currencies, which could help them out a lot in the future.



Not sure if that is true. I mean if RMB was stronger they would export less produce, but they would get more foreign currency in return per unit, so it should even itself out no?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
226 Posts
Points 3,270

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

David Sherin:

Same here. I just read an article that said when a currency strengthens, prices in that country go up (???). I've never heard an explanation for this, but it makes no sense to me. Maybe there is a reason for it, something to do with fiat money or central banking (I don't know), but I agree that a free market would not operate like that.

At least in the current currency system in place, it has to do with dollar conversion.  Take for example Germany and the BMW.  The BMW factory in Germany sells the product to distributors in the United States in Euros.  Let's say it's worth 50,000€.  A strong euro means that it takes more dollars to convert to the necessary euros to buy the car.  So, in the United States a Euro that is worth twice as much as the dollar would make a BMW cost $100,000, while a weaker euro would make it cheaper in dollars.

So, Ensuric is right.  They make the product cheaper for the importer, but more expensive for their own people.  Over the long run it just means global poverty (especially since it's really spiraling, as every country depreciates its currency).  The problem is that they don't take into account the transfer of capital, and they overplay the importance of not having a trade deficit (which is a ridiculous notion, anyways; why would an individual economic actor trade for something that he gets less utlity out of than what he gave in return?).

 

Thanks for that explanation. It makes more sense now. I would laugh every time I learn more about this convoluted system we live in if it weren't so serious.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 3 of 3 (32 items) < Previous 1 2 3 | RSS