RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Over the course of the last two decades, we have seen a massive increase in global trade in conjunction with a wide array of free trade agreements.

For those who do not track these agreements, two of the United States’ formal trade agreements are:

1. NAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement
2. CAFTA: Central America Free Trade Agreement

As a country, we have formal trade agreements with certain nations but trade extensively around the world. For those who care to further explore the nature and extent of the U.S. trade agreements, you can do so at http://www.export.gov/fta/index.asp.

Our trade with China presents particular challenges. China has a significant level of quality control and worker safety issues.

There are serious questions about Chinese abuse of human rights. On the foreign policy front, China is closely allied with states that sponsor terrorism, including Iran and Sudan.

As a nation, we had limited interaction with China until President Nixon engaged them during his tenure. In the late 1970s, we had a mere $2.5 billion in trade with this most populous country in the world. Fast forward and at the end of 2007, our level of trade topped $300 billion.

Our trade representatives have always been challenged in dealing with the Chinese, given the issues highlighted previously. That said, our administrations have increasingly viewed China as too big a market and too large a presence in world affairs not to engage. As our engagement with China has been facilitated by increasing levels of overall prosperity, how do we now economically engage the enigma that China represents during this downturn?

“In bad times everybody talks more about financial cooperation but the reality is that in bad times everyone wants to take care of himself first,” said Shi Yinhong, an international security professor at Renmin University in Beijing.

As I read that quote in a recent article in the International Herald Tribune, I was brought back to my Economics class, Social Welfare, and the study of “The Prisoners Dilemma.”

Without going into extensive economic analysis on this “dilemma,” in short it represents the choices a partner has, not knowing exactly how the other partner will act. While the partners would mutually benefit through cooperation, if one partner chooses to act in his own self-interest, the other partner is penalized if he does not also act in his self-interest. As a result, both partners are worse off by acting selfishly. Welcome to the world of global trade in 2009.

While promoting global trade and economic cooperation has not universally been accepted as being in our national interests, ultimately I do believe that in growing overall output worldwide we have the best chance to further our nation’s interests and well being. The challenge for us and for every country at this juncture is how to handle trade relationships during tough economic periods. Just as Professor Yinhong mentions, while collectively all nations in the world would benefit at this time through economic cooperation, it is highly likely that many and then most countries will choose their individual self-interests.

Where and how will this play out? By subtly promoting policies to devalue one’s currency, a country attempts to generate an advantage for its exports. How does that work? Very simply, as a currency declines in value, exports are cheaper because the devalued currency implies lower production costs. For example, if the U.S. dollar lost half its value with no change in the prices of our exports and all other currencies in the world remained unchanged in value, then our country would benefit by manufacturers’ increased production of goods. We are starting to see the pursuit of this very goal and the promotion of currency devaluation around the world.

That very scenario is the reason why newly confirmed Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner remarked a few days ago that the Chinese were manipulating their currency. Geithner and plenty others do believe the Chinese have intentionally kept the yuan too low in value in order to promote exports and overall growth.

Geithner’s comments, in my opinion, were not a casual off the record assertion of a personal opinion, but rather an opening salvo by the Obama administration in the game of world trade circa 2009.
The stakes in this game are extraordinarily high. As we mentioned in our show on Sunday evening, foreign entities hold 49% of our government debt. The largest holder until recently was Japan, and as of September 2008 is now the People’s Republic of China. The following link highlights this fact: http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt.

As our deficit explodes, we are increasingly dependent on foreign funding. While this administration and every administration would never admit they would favor a weaker currency, especially at this time, believe me they would have no problem with it. A weaker currency not only may help promote growth in exports, it is also inflationary which our government would not mind in the face of the increased deficit. Again, they would never say that, but they would not mind it. In fact, every nation in the world right now would like to see a decline in their currency value for these same reasons.

While we sit in our cell wondering what to do and what our partner will do, the Chinese sit in their cell wondering the same thing. China has a whole set of its own issues given the cataclysmic dropoff in world trade. They are also pacing in their cell but they do so in the form of a totalitarian government which has no issues in repressing the rights of its citizens. Do we think they may act in our interest, by allowing their yuan to increase in value? Are they thinking there is no way our administration would run the risk of antagonizing the largest holder of our debt? Do the prospects of increased protectionism on our part also go through their mind?

The WSJ reported China’s Ministry of Commerce parry as “directing unsubstantiated criticism at China on the exchange-rate issue will only help U.S. protectionism and will not help toward a real solution to the issue.”

Increased protectionism along with increased taxes were the overriding factors that led our country into the Great Depression.

Welcome to the real world version of “The Prisoner’s Dilemma 2009.”

LD

  • Dawnelle

    I have much affection for all things Asian. I would trust that culture with honoring their word over any others.

    I was married to an Asian man and have a beautiful daughter.
    Lived in Asia for a while and can tell you being dishonored is the WORST thing one can do. Being polite is up there at the top too! (I try! I swear I try! lol) This is good for Japan, Korea & China imo.

    It’s in their DNA. Many things I’ve discovered have crossed over into actual genetic disposition versus environmental causes.

    If they give their word they will do this or the other? I would believe them over most other areas of the world.

    jmo. Not that it matters.

  • LD

    It matters…it always matters…thanks.

  • lark

    We made a mistake in opening up to China. We should have remain loyal to our American partners to the North and to the South, because they have been our loyal friends, the admire us, and they put a high value on our friendship and our religious values. But because of fear of loosing the English language, the fear of Catholicism, and the fear of high humidity and fresh air, we decided to betray Americans and pair up with the Chinese. Now we are paying the consequences.

    Really, we think that Mexicans and South Americans are beneath us and inferior in every way. So we never had any interest in connecting with them. For Americans, Americans south of the border are a subservient culture, not worth to engage in progressive talks. So in effect the U.S. have or is right now at the brink of loosing the support of all Americans.

    Nafta and Cafta are good agreements. These two agreements should be our central concerns and the countries in those agreements should be our most important commercial and political partners.

    As American countries shed the poverty of their 20th. Century, more and more the recent the marginal treatment the U.S. gives them and how they are abandoned for the Chinese. By that process, Americans will loose Americans’ good will. The Chinese know how to take advantage of that.

  • lark

    I know that Geithner has contempt for Americans because he willfully tried to refrain paying SS and Medicare to his American alien workers that labored for him at his home.

  • athy

    LD
    Good post. Thanks for links.

    You wrote:

    Increased protectionism along with increased taxes were the overriding factors that led our country into the Great Depression.

    My question is, how does the following influence the equation (i.e events that lead countries into/or pull countries out of depressions):

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_lobbies_for_825_bln_stimulus_0127.html

    Obama lobbies for $825 bln stimulus to thwart recession

    Agence France-Presse

    Published: Tuesday January 27, 2009

    EXCERPT

    WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama was bidding Tuesday to win support for an 825-billion-dollar US rescue package aimed at checking a punishing recession that is taking a huge toll on the world labour market.

    Obama got a boost Monday when the US Congress approved the appointment of Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary.

    Geithner at his swearing-in ceremony said his agenda was “to move quickly … to restore confidence in America’s economic leadership around the world.”

    His immediate objectives are “to make our economy more productive … to restore trust in our financial system with fundamental reform (and) to make our tax system better at rewarding work and investment,” he said.

    Geithner will be aided in his duties by the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, which opens a two-day meeting Tuesday in search of new tools to stimulate lending and revive momentum.

    The meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee is being held six weeks after the Fed slashed its base lending rate to a range of zero to 0.25 percent and predicted “exceptionally low” rates to persist “for some time.”

    Where do they expect this $825 billion to come from?

  • athy

    lark-

    Also,

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16109063/

    Wesley Snipes arrested for tax evasion
    Actor released on $1 million bail after surrendering to federal authorities

    Just curious…why the different treatment between the two men?

  • fiscalliberal

    Excellent subject Larry

    I to know a lot of asians and value their honesty and sincerity. However that has been personal. It is my understanding that it is different in the business world.

    Specifically, the comment is made that signing a contract with the chinese is simply the beginning of negotiation. In the world of manufacturing, things happen and these contracts written by Harvard MBA’s and purchasing agents go for low price, versus being cognizant of issues of quality control, delivery schedules etc.

    However we need to be cognizant of the fact that China’s manufacuturing has been enabled by foreign capital investment. So, there are a lot of issues that should be discussed and we should not get up tight simply because we publically discuss things like currency manipulation. WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THE BOOKS ARE NOT PUBLIC in chineese economic topics.

    Furthermore we need to understand that traitional US capitalsm is dead. Pivitize gains and socialize the losses. A good depression tends to bring things back to reality.

    So – I for one do not have any problem with a public discussion about currancy manipulation. Lets see if it is true or not, however the books have to be open.

  • lark

    The challenge for us and for every country at this juncture is how to handle trade relationships during tough economic periods.

    I guess since we like to abuse others pretty good during good economic periods, specially Americans.

    To me the idea is not to make mistakes the first time around. But once mistakes are done, what do you do?

    What do we do after we have shown such bias against Americans and favoring the Chinese.

    In fact, every nation in the world right now would like to see a decline in their currency value for these same reasons.

    Don’t you think that is kind of cynical?

    Why do you want to punish others for your mistakes or better yet for our mistakes?

    That type of talk is very bad because it demonstrates how we like to dominate others according to our will and our circumstances.

  • Sassy

    Like so many of our bureaucratic policies, these trade agreements receive little scrutiny.
    Senator Dorgan often brought out his “Huffy” bicycle posters, and pointed out the cost to our society in lost jobs, and the pitiful “wages” paid in China and elsewhere.
    Yes, they are pacing the cells on both sides, but not for fair trade, but to take every advantage they can, in the short term.

  • C.S.

    Where do they expect this $825 billion to come from?

    Same place it always does…except unemployed taxpayers won’t be paying this year, or next unless they can find a job paying what they did earn. Perhaps Soertoro/Obama would lend the government his $750 million in “donations” to help out; or now he’s been properly sworn in perhaps he can put the touch on his donors to help him out again because only 1/4 of his donations came from contributions of $200 or less so that leaves a rich source of potential dollars.

  • mountainaires

    I don’t know a thing about how currency manipulation or trade imbalance works. So, thanks for bringing it up, LD. I read what you write, then go off on a blissful [to me] research exploration to try to comprehend it all…I’ll never catch up, but I do read some interesting things along the way, and learn a few things.

    Reading this was interesting and enlightening: [I'm interested in your take on these arguments]

    http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com/

    The prisoner’s dilemma is described in this article, sort of, by highlighting the possible consequences of higher interest rates [Ruth Ackerman at Forbes].

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/24/china-geithner-update-markets-equity-cx_ra_0123markets36.html

  • wodiej

    We can’t possibly have fair trade w a country who pays workers menial wages and has no labor laws. If that is their culture so be it. But there should be stricter standards and penalties for US companies that move labor overseas.

  • lark

    What our economy needs is not more money or cheaper money. What our economy needs is more care.

    Hillary cared and Sarah Palin cared. But no, we had to elect BO who can’t care less and McCain who cares as long as it fits his needs.

  • wodiej

    Amen to that

  • MrMike

    We would be a lot better off had we adult leadership in the White House these past 8 years instead of a tax cutting war hawk.
    The democrats aren’t above criticism as they were too cowardly to do what is right either.
    Bush and company put everything on credit cards and we are left holding that debt.
    How anybody in their right mind would vote for a republican any time soon is beyond me.

  • lark

    The thing with China is that they have contempt for Christianity and for Christians. Trading with China simply goes against our best interest. On the other hand, Nafta and Cafta are trading agreements with people of like faith and like minded. Why not hone in on building trade routes and enterprises with people who have us in good standing and have a similar religious faith. Wouldn’t that work much better in the long run.

    We don’t have to isolate ourselves but I don’t see why we have to prop up a regime that is so contemptuous with the way we believe and with our values when there are so many opportunities to work with people that have the same values.

  • Dawnelle

    and a PRAISE BE that’s a FACT JACK! ;-)

  • Dawnelle

    why anyone would ADMIT to being EITHER ONE is beyond me!!

    DEMS are DIRTY in my eyes now forever!
    REPS always were.

    but there are small groups of both that are trying to keep it real – I wish they had more balz but they have made politics their living and don’t want to poop in their own nest or be out of work

    it’s sad

  • Mary

    Excellent comment. BIG difference between free trade and fair trade.

    Know what the minimum wage in China is?

    $5.50 per hour. Factory workers make about $200-$250 a month; their supervisors make about $400-$450 a month, most of which they send back home to the countryside for their own parents who are raising their children (who are not allowed to accompany their parents to the factory dorms where they live).

    When George Bush Sr was Ambassador to China years ago, his banker brother STAYED in China to establish the Chinese chapter of the Chamber of Commerce, and has been there–or his corporation reps—ever since.

    Bush Sr’s brother opened a very lucrative consulting business advising American corporations on transfering most of their manufacturing to the Chinese factories, where they could pay workers as little as $5.50 an hour.

    NAFTA was actually passed by George Bush Sr, in November of 1992, after Clinton had won the election, but before Senior left office.

    Clinton actually inherited NAFTA, and attempted to change “free trade” to “fair trade,” with added labor and environmental regulations. But as soon as he lost control of Congress, most of the “fair trade” regulations were blocked.

    FREE trade made LOTS of money for the Bush dynasty and their backers.

    It is a large part of why they were determined to destroy Clinton, and were willing to back Bush Senior’s dim son George W. in 2000.

    Who was it that said, “The business of America is business?”

  • wodiej

    I agree…both sides are equally to blame. It makes me sick.

  • wodiej

    I agree!

  • IndyRobin

    FYI … SoS Hillary Clinton getting ready to go live on CNN in a few ( or so they claim )

  • Gary McGowan

    “If you ask why should we not bomb the Russians tomorrow, I say, why don’t we bomb them today?”

    - John von Neumann, declared “Man of the Century [last century], for, among a couple of other things, coming up with “game theory,” of which the “prisoner’s dilemma” is a representative example.

    More here:
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/von_Neumann.html

    Feminists might not want to miss the report, “The First Programmer Was a Woman” (It’s true.) Scroll way down the page.

    I say it’s the 21st century and time to be thinking outside the box. A snip from my link:

    Game-theory fails systematically because the economic dogma to which it is chained, for better or worse, has a principled fault. It cannot explain how real wealth is created. The market cannot generate real wealth, but only, at best, distribute it. The Mandevillean basic assumption that “private vices” promote the “public good,” in a way which remains a mystery to the participants in the great “social game,” is wrong. Without a horizon of the future which provides a perspective for economic activity, no national economy can last for long. General egoism cannot replace creative innovations, which always also contain changes in the economic and social “rules of the game.”

    Wherever this overriding principle makes itself felt in concrete activity, game-theory must systematically fail, as surely as do the prisoners Max and Melvin. Or, inversely expressed, to the degree that game-theory yields correct results, the economy has lost the horizon opening onto the future, without which it cannot exist.

    For irresponsible and immoral speculators and frauds, on the other hand, the game-theoretical approach is ideal. The game-theoretical approach to economics functions so well that it even wins Nobel Prizes. And then it is high time to ring the alarm bells!

  • LD

    Athy,

    CS is correct. The $825 billion will coem from deficit spending. Future generations will be paying the tab.

    I would much prefer addressing the purchase of toxic assets so that we can begin to work at increasing confidence in the banking system and thus an increase in lending.

    The impact of the stimulus will not be felt until later in 2010 and 2011.

  • http://Godhelpusall lee M

    Athy, it could be because Obama’s mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) worked for Geithner’s father at the Ford foundation, and it has been rumored that the two, Tim and Barry, knew each other in the past. They also have in common the fact that their formative? years were spent in the same foreign countries. In his remarks made at his confirmation as Treasury Secy, Geithner thanked his parents for this very thing.

  • mido

    While in graduate school, I also studied the Prisoners’ Dilemma, specifically, the N-Person version of the dilemma, which involves a much larger, specified number of participants.

    This, of course, is how the real-world applications of this scenario are played out–with millions of people deciding what will serve themselves best (and sometimes considering how their own behavior will affect others). Research has shown that in multi-trial versions of the game, a “tit-for-tat” strategy tends to emerge, where if a player acts in a selfish manner and the other player loses, the second player tends to retaliate in the same manner on the next round. Same thing occurs with cooperative behavior.

    Most social dilemmas are multi-participant, multi-trial, even going on into perpetuity. I very much liked your application of this theory to the situation with China. Well stated!

  • LD

    Mido….Thanks for the plug.

  • http://Godhelpusall lee M

    Mary, thank you for this info. I didn’t know this about Bush Sr.’s brother. Perhaps this is the reason Bush Sr. is so anxious to promote Jeb Bush for president now that Jr.’s reign is over. Nothing like keeping it in the family and sticking it to America while lining their own pockets. We’d better keep this in mind if Jeb does decide to run in the future.

  • lark

    So how are the Nafta and Cafta countries to react in lieu of U.S. obsession with taming the Chinese dragon?

  • LD

    Will these trade agreements be strained? We saw the potential for this during the campaign.

  • lark

    Paying attention to people who like us for who we are is much better than paying attention to people who like us for what we are.

  • athy

    Very interesting discussion taking place on this thread. Thanks all!

    LD.
    You wrote:

    Without going into extensive economic analysis on this “dilemma,” in short it represents the choices a partner has, not knowing exactly how the other partner will act. While the partners would mutually benefit through cooperation, if one partner chooses to act in his own self-interest, the other partner is penalized if he does not also act in his self-interest. As a result, both partners are worse off by acting selfishly. Welcome to the world of global trade in 2009

    Yes, partners can benefit, IMO, through cooperation however, some think that oil-a fixed amount resource- necessitates a ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma-type int’l trade environment.

    Who will have the courage to ‘blink’ first?

    Who will step off the treadmill and say “enough is enough”- let’s focus on alternative sources of fuel and energy?

    Until this can happen, IMO, international trade will continue to dominated by many (especially those in the private sector who have great influence over governments)using a Prisoner’s Dilemma strategy which, in the end- may make the trading partners worse off than if they had cooperated at the start.

  • oowawa

    he can put the touch on his donors to help him out again

    I like this idea. Of course, in donating to the US Treasury, there will be no restrictions on the amount any individual or corporation can contribute, so the coffers will fill all the more quickly. Incentives? I suggest “Patriot Points” rewarded for dollars contributed (something like ‘frequent flyer miles’). Special privileges can be enjoyed by cashing in “patriot points” (a night in the Lincoln bedroom? lunch with Michelle? a Congressional Medal of Honor?). Let’s get serious about bringing down the deficit!

  • LD

    Athy….thank you for furthering the dialogue as well.

  • oowawa

    Oh yes, my brain is just feverish with creative energy thinking of this:

    We can bring back savings stamps, and call them something like H&C (Hope and Change) Savings Stamps. We will collect them in little books (the design on each stamp could be the Obama logo). Our “Patriot Points” would be issued in the form of H&C stamps, and we would have fun licking them and pasting them in our H&C books. Moreover, H&C stamps would be issued with every retail purchase (pre-included in the price, maybe 10% or so, but totally invisible and hence not a tax). We could appoint an H&C Czar to oversee the process!

  • harper

    thanks

    thats very true. Instead of opening up and promoting prosperity and wealth with the south american nations, improving security and stability in the continent and reducing the immigration pressures, the US just antagonized and marginalized them as unimportant ugly poor neighbors and preferred to move jobs to China. Now the latin nations are gravitating towards the brazilian influence or the venezuelan demagogue, while the dems continue to stupidly refuse to approve the trade agreement with ally Colombia.

  • LD

    thanks very much for your insightful color on this topic…much appreciated.

  • LD

    Mountainaires,

    In the first piece the writer seems to parse the WSJ review of the Chinese tactics used to manage their currency valuation. For what it is worth the Chinese did allow the yuan to increase 20% in value vs the U.S. dollar in 2005. Our government and others believe that it should be allowed to float to fair value wherever that is. This challenge is an issue in dealing with a Communist government that is trying to promote the benefits of a free market economy. While the Chinese are trying to walk that balance beam it does impact our economy and markets. I guess the question that we should ask is would we rather that the Chinese close their markets and their country altogether or leave it the situation as is. I certainly do not expect that China will fully open their markets and change to a democratic government anytime soon. Thus, the price for us in dealing with China is that we can trade with them and have them provide significant levels of financing for us but it is going to cost us in terms of a weak yuan.

    In regard to the second article that piece nails the essence of the dilemma facing us. If we play so hard that the Chinese sell our government bonds or merely fail to buy new bonds, our rates will likely move up substantially and quickly. The “Prisoner’s Dilemma” is a real quandary when the depth of relationships do not run so deep that it becomes second nature to cooperate.

    What a world. I am glad that you feel like you are learning. So am I.

  • LD

    Fiscal…Good solid points. Glad that we can discuss these points here at NQ. Can you even begin to imagine if we lived in a society and country in which we did not have the freedom to openly debate and discuss?!

    Thanks for adding your insights.

    I did hear this morning that a major topic at the Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland is “trust”. How interesting because at the core of the “prisoner’s dilemma” is that very concept.

  • http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=62 Leftovers « senseoncents.com

    [...] our new Treasury Secretary taking them to task about the value of the Chinese yuan. This “dilemma” continues to evolve. We’ll be watching and we thank our reader for sharing that [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus