Here is the Treasury’s list of the three criteria it uses to identify “currency manipulators”:
Pursuant to Section 701 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, this section seeks to identify any major trading partner of the United States that has: (1) a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States, (2) a material current account surplus, and (3) engaged in persistent one-sided intervention in the foreign exchange market. Section 701 requires data on each major trading partner’s bilateral trade balance with the United States, its current account balance as a percentage of GDP, the three-year change in the current account balance as a percentage of GDP, foreign exchange reserves as a percentage of short-term debt, and foreign exchange reserves as a percentage of GDP. Data for the most recent four-quarter period (January to December 2016, unless otherwise noted) are provided in Table 1 (on p. 13) and Table 2 (below).
This is obviously beyond stupid. (Since when do bilateral trade deficits mean anything?) But at least the Treasury doesn’t try to read minds, and interpret the intentions of other countries.
Matthew McOsker sent me an article from the Economist, which nicely illustrates the confusion surrounding the concept of currency manipulation:
Awkwardly for America, two of its friends in Asia have recently scored more highly than China: South Korea and, most clearly, Taiwan. But the highest score of all goes to Switzerland, by dint of its whopping current-account surplus and its hefty foreign-currency purchases. This illustrates one of the method’s flaws: in terms of the goods and services that it can actually buy, the Swiss franc is in fact among the world’s most overvalued currencies.
This is why it’s so important to have a clear definition of currency manipulation. The Economist clearly thinks the concept is related to undervalued currencies, and most people probably agree. But whether a currency is “undervalued” is completely unrelated to whether some of the other criteria are met, such as large purchases of foreign exchange and/or a current account surplus. If you really believe that large purchases of foreign exchange and a big current account surplus constitute currency manipulation, then you should have the courage of your convictions and label Switzerland as one of the world’s worst villains. After all, it is among the world’s leaders in both categories.
And this leads to another irony. I frequently point out that the more conservative the central bank, the bigger the balance sheet as a share of GDP. Thus in the future we may end up seeing more and more countries like Switzerland, with huge purchases of foreign assets in a futile attempt to prevent their currency from appreciating.
To avoid being labeled a currency manipulator, they may instead choose to buy domestic assets (as in Japan). This will also boost domestic saving, depreciate the currency and increase the current account. But since they won’t be buying “foreign exchange”, they just might fool the US Treasury. (It’s not hard, when the Treasury is hamstrung by the silly mandate given to it by Congress.)
Here’s another irony. Some people seem to think that fixed exchange rate regimes are evidence of currency manipulation. But in the 1990s the EU had a fixed exchange rate system with the express purpose of preventing currency manipulation. In fact, fixed exchange rate regimes determine the path of the nominal exchange rate. But if currency manipulation happens at all (I doubt it), then it surely relates to real exchange rates. Thus if currency manipulation happens, it is equally likely to occur with a fixed or floating exchange rate regime. Indeed you don’t even need your own currency to “manipulate” your real exchange rate. Germany depreciated its real exchange rate in the 2000s. If Wisconsin wanted to depreciate its real exchange rate it could do so.
But why would they want to?