You are here:   China > The End of 'Chimerica'
 
The second geopolitical implication of the current crisis is that the days when the dollar was the sole international reserve currency are coming to an end. Reserve currencies do not last forever, as the case of the British pound makes clear. Once upon a time, sterling was the world’s number one currency, the unit of account in which most financial transactions were done. It died a slow, long, lingering death, sliding from $4.86 in 1930 to very nearly parity with the dollar at the nadir in the early 1980s. “When exactly did sterling stop being the world's number one currency?” is an interesting question. Some historians would say it was as early as 1915, which was the first time that the British government had to issue dollar-denominated debt in New York. Others would say it was in 1931, when the pound went off gold. It certainly was clear by the 1950s that the pound could no longer be the financial anchor it had been in the previous century. The principal reason for that was debt: the huge debts that Britain had run up to fight the world wars. The second reason was lower growth. Britain's economy was the under-performer of the developed world in the postwar decades, right down to the early 1980s.

History’s lesson is clear: the combination of high indebtedness and low growth is lethal to reserve currency status, provided there is an alternative. The last time the dollar weakened significantly, there was no alternative. There is an alternative now. It is perfectly plausible to imagine a world economy in which the euro is at least equivalent to, if not superior to, the dollar. Already, statistics produced by the Bank for International Settlements show that more bonds are issued in euros than in dollars.

A third geopolitical consequence of the crisis we are living through is that troublemakers get richer. The effect on gross domestic product of an increase in the price of oil from $50 to $100 a barrel was a 16 per cent gain for Russia, a 24 per cent gain for Iran and a 33 per cent gain for Venezuela. High energy prices would not matter if there were more Norways or Canadas among the energy exporters, or if significant new sources of energy could be found in the United States itself. But this is not going to happen any time soon, even if restrictions on exploration and drilling in the US are lifted. The biggest increases in oil production in recent years have been in countries like Azerbaijan and Angola.

As those names suggest, a striking feature of the current chase for commodities is that it is taking the commodity importers to ever more exotic locations. A hundred years ago, of course, the scramble for Africa had more or less reached its climax. But back then, many empires were scrambling for African resources. Now there is only one. China's scramble for resources in Africa is one of the most extraordinary phenomena of our times. It is almost as if we are witnessing the genesis of a new empire. And it is happening in the traditional way.

You decide you want resources from a certain place. You feel uneasy about simply relying on market forces to get those resources. So you say “we'll own the infrastructure”. You start to build the roads, the port facilities, to upgrade the mines. And then you discover something awkward about the countries in question: they are politically unstable, particularly at a time of high food prices. So what do you do? “Well, we have to secure our assets. We’d better have a few people with guns there.” Gradually the number of armed Chinese in the vicinity of Chinese assets in Africa increases.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Kevin Boyles
December 23rd, 2008
10:12 AM
The main differences between previous empires and China eventual global domination is that Chinese culture is one of saving not spending, whereas British and US culture and economy has been based on spending.

Anonymous
December 23rd, 2008
10:12 AM
I think that the key limit to China's growth will be oil. And that oil - if it were to become scarce in 2075 may end the Chinese economy, the US economy and the European economy simply because no substitutes have been found for kerosene, and alternative fuels are too expensive to create if you don't have oil (because they take more energy to produce them than they produce). The world must one day return to 3 billion people - the number that our sun can sustain without fossil fuels.

Michel Tremblay
November 18th, 2008
4:11 AM
Alfred may have a point that unless reforms are introduced the Chinese miracle may not be sustainable. However, India will most certainly not be a replacement with a relatively closed economy, an systemic corrupt bureaucracy and widespread extreme poverty. India will not be on course to challenge China for at least the next century.

Tom Burkard
October 16th, 2008
10:10 AM
Niall Ferguson is correct in stating that gold was scarce at the start of the industrial revolution, but he ignores the role of credit and banking. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain's growing military and naval power--which opened markets to British exports-- depended crucially upon its ability to borrow money cheaply, mostly from its own citizens. The Whig revolution ensured that it was safe to invest in Consols, as the rentier class controlled Parliament. Britain was unique in having an open economy where there were almost no restrictions on investment or enterprise, and an independent judiciary meant that there was little fear that government (or anyone else) would confiscate property. Hence, Britain became a magnet for the most talented and enterprising people in Europe and beyond. Alfred Mahan is right to question whether China's growth is sustainable; the lack of free institutions may well inhibit the development of a modern, market-based economy.

Alfred T Mahan
September 2nd, 2008
10:09 AM
This is fascinating, but when you compare modern China to Stalinism you seem to assume that China's growth will continue. However the history of the USSR shows us that planned economies sooner or later collapse because their allocation of capital and the economic incentives to produce are inefficient. At the stage of building infrastructure, this is not so apparent as it is later in the development cycle when consumption is more important. I therefore question whether China's growth is sustainable over the decades needed to overtake America, even given China's huge size advantage. While you are right to point out the parallels between the decline of the British Empire and the USA's current position, might it not be that some other power or powers arise rather than just China? I'm thinking especially of India, which has a huge population, a pluralistic political system, and an economy growing rapidly on the basis of (broadly speaking) liberalised and therefore efficient market-centred policies.

Mihail
August 29th, 2008
11:08 AM
This is great. Standpoint is an excellent magazine! I wish it were widely translated, and generously distributed in Eastern Europe, in countries like Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, and the rest. This piece by Niall Ferguson is yet another proof of his brilliance and exactitude. Also, many thanks for the discussion on Gulag, Stalin and Mao. More of that is needed, in Britain and in the West. You deserve heartfelt thanks and warm congratulations.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.