Lie of the Tiger

How the United States really tamed the Japanese economy -- and why China's a much meaner cat.

BY CLYDE V. PRESTOWITZ | NOVEMBER 2010

When I arrived in Washington in the fall of 1981 to serve as counselor to President Ronald Reagan's commerce secretary, the United States was more afraid of Japan than it had been since Pearl Harbor. The Japanese auto industry was preparing to have Detroit for lunch. Imports of gas-sipping Hondas and Toyotas were forcing America's Big Three automakers to close plants and lay off hundreds of thousands of workers. The American semiconductor industry, pioneered by Silicon Valley start-ups, was on the ropes: Japanese producers, supported by their government, took over half the market for the newest generation of computer chips. And all this was happening amid a crippling U.S. recession.

Japan's economic miracle was no accident: It came out of a careful program of subsidized investment in "strategic industries" -- steel, machinery, electronics, chemicals, autos, shipbuilding, and aircraft. Japanese leaders focused on exports to drive their economy, suppressing domestic consumption with taxes and limited consumer credit, while encouraging high savings and investment rates. They established world-class factories and emphasized Japanese-developed technology, while requiring foreign companies to hand over their own as a condition of market access. They prevented industrywide labor unions and kept the yen undervalued against the dollar, while protecting domestic industries with tariffs and trade barriers.

If this sounds familiar, it should. Japan's economic miracle became the template that other Asian tigers would follow in the decades to come: South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and now, the biggest of them all, China. Which is why it's important to know the truth about how the United States, today facing a new Asian economic challenge, dealt with the last one -- not the myths we've told ourselves for the past 20 years about how our free market tactics defeated our Japanese rival.

For all its laissez-faire rhetoric, the Reagan administration fought fire with fire, responding to Japan's market-distorting industrial and trade policies with a firm hand. It quickly concluded a "voluntary export restraint" agreement under which Tokyo, threatened with protectionist congressional legislation, limited its auto exports to 1.68 million per year. In effect, this forced Japanese automakers to build transplant factories in the United States, somewhat stanching the loss of U.S.-based auto-production and manufacturing jobs. Washington also rescued the failing Harley-Davidson company by raising tariffs temporarily on certain high-end motorcycle imports and was even more aggressive in its support of the domestic semiconductor industry, initiating anti-dumping procedures and getting Tokyo to guarantee U.S. manufacturers 20 percent of the Japanese market.

Most important was the 1985 Plaza Accord under which Washington convinced Tokyo to revalue the yen to reduce the large U.S. trade deficit. Over the next few years, the yen rose against the dollar, and the tide of U.S. imports from Japan receded. The trade deficit fell from $55 billion in 1986 to $43 billion in 1991. Harley-Davidson and Silicon Valley came rushing back, and Detroit's automakers gained a new, if temporary, lease on life.

Somehow these successes from America's last great trade war have been forgotten -- blotted out by patriotic sloganeering ("American industry pulled up its socks to meet the Japanese challenge") and economic shibboleths ("Trade is always and everywhere a win-win proposition"). But wishful thinking won't help with China -- much less at such a volatile time in the global economy.

Like 1980s Japan, China today is pursuing an export-led growth strategy, suppressing domestic consumption, pushing savings, and guiding investment into strategic industries. It has a multitude of trade barriers, weak labor unions, and an undervalued currency. The U.S. trade deficit with China is now about $250 billion -- four times that with Japan. Despite its early welcome to foreign investors, Beijing is focused intensely on developing its own technology. More importantly, U.S. high-tech industries -- solar energy, computer chips, and fiber optics -- are increasingly being offshored to China. And Chinese commitments to strongly protect intellectual property are often honored more in their breach than in their execution. As one Chinese friend explained to me last year, "Now we have all the foreign dogs in the kennel, and we're going to beat the stuffing out of them."

But Washington has become so convinced it beat Japan with free market policies that it is not responding to Beijing at all as it did to Tokyo. Barack Obama's administration has filed only one WTO complaint since taking office and has steadfastly refused to label Beijing a currency manipulator -- though it clearly is. Washington has not even dared to think about voluntary export restraints and has had little success persuading Beijing to revalue the yuan. That's no surprise: The Chinese are convinced that the Plaza Accord led to Japan's collapse and have vowed to avoid the same mistake. As one high official of the People's Bank of China told me, "We're not going to be crazy like the Japanese."

Illustration by Edel Rodriguez for FP

 

GRANT

8:11 PM ET

October 11, 2010

Reagan (or at least the

Reagan (or at least the government in the 80s) also decided to indulge in protectionism even though many of the Japanese brands were actually more efficient (on the international market that is).
Also stating that we didn't 'beat' Japan doesn't mention that the Japanese government decided to start spending at a ridiculous pace, creating a debt of about 200% the nations GDP and one that would take quite some time to pay off even if Japan did raise taxes as high as they would need to. That combined with a domestic market that's simply not competitive with the rest of the world I'd say Japan came off far worse than this would suggest.

 

CM202BC

2:08 AM ET

October 12, 2010

love the article, but

Great article, it's rare we get to hear a cogent and well explained defense of the reasons trade policy still works and can have a positive effect if we utilize it.

Mr. Prestowitz ought to have used inflation adjusted figures for the 2006 trade deficit, which show that it was in fact still 18% lower in real terms than in 1986. Maybe some of those controls were lifted with the creation of the WTO, maybe the long term effect is more influenced by the shift of many industries out of Japan and into China. Regardless of my nitpicking, the article illustrates both that there was a clear and quantifiable positive effect for America in the short term, and that Japan's continued use of trade policy to promote economic growth has been an effective prop to their economy in the long term.

 

CARDSHARP

7:23 AM ET

October 19, 2010

The author sure didn't think Reagen won the trade against Jap

Japan if he wrote this 'masterpiece' in 1993 a year after Reagan left office.

Trading Places - How We Are Giving Our Future to Japan and How to Reclaim It, 1993

Another political stooge leading the country down an idealogical fantasy land. Sure start a trade war with China.

 

IAN

10:47 AM ET

October 19, 2010

I think the author is

trying to say that the US is already in a trade war with China. And the only way, at least he thinks, is to fight "fire with fire". I.E., ramp up protectionism and all that stuff that has never worked before, but suddenly seems like it could work this time cause we are smarter and have more knowledge about how this works than before...

 

MAOSAYTONGUE

4:55 PM ET

October 19, 2010

America only goes to war with

America only goes to war with countries that cannot fight back. Red China has nothing to worry about--so long as they have nukes.

 

ONN

6:38 PM ET

October 19, 2010

Ever here of the Soviet Union

Ever here of the Soviet Union much? The Cold War?

 

MARIK7

5:34 PM ET

October 25, 2010

Cold War

The Cold War did not involve the armies of the United States and the Soviet Union crossing one another's borders.

However, the United States has crossed the borders of several countries much smaller and poorer than the USA since WWII.

That, I believe, is the meaning of Maosayton Gue's post.

 

ONN

6:39 PM ET

October 19, 2010

"Now we have all the foreign

"Now we have all the foreign dogs in the kennel, and we're going to beat the stuffing out of them."

What a jackass comment, we're going to beat the stuffing out of China!

 

BARKER13

9:35 AM ET

October 22, 2010

America First!

There's no such thing as international "free trade." Heck... even internally - within the nation, even within individual states - there are political distortions that create a mockery of "fair" trade in the context of "free" trade.

Our national goal, our federal government's goal, should be to ensure that America "wins" the trade "game."

By "wins" I mean we can't be in a position where we're at the mercy of any foreign supplier of... er... anything vital.

(Let's not waste time and energy trying to define "vital"; reasonable readers "get" the concept.)

Right now China has a stranglehold on vital/"rare" mining resources. First they chose to employ this stick against Japan... presently they're employing it against us. (They'll of course step back from the brink, but their point has been made.)

Folks... it's not like your foreign produced sneakers cost you $6.00; no, they cost you $60... perhaps $70... $90... $120. Even if it did cost $20 to manufacture a pair of sneakers in the good ol' USA, even with marketing, transportation, stocking, and all the other associated costs factored in, I can't imagine that a U.S. company willing to "settle" for a "reasonable" return on investment wouldn't prosper.

Bottom line... lawyers, doctors, and other "professionals" cost a great deal in terms of supporting their incomes. Unless everyone is a professional the math just doesn't work out. (We might as well go back to barter!) We're seeing this with teachers - both their pay and benefits and especially their pensions. Costs are blowing up the system!

Plus... com'on... you don't have to be a Charles Murray disciple to acknowledge that there are genetic as well as cultural and character/personality factors at work when it comes not just to basic IQ, but to how far a person can go on an academic track. Not everyone "has what it takes" - nor would want to even assuming ability - to become a "knowledge economy" professional.

Anyone look at black unemployment stats lately; native born Hispanic citizen unemployment stats? Our own people need the sorts of stable, fair paying factory and other "blue collar" jobs that only an industrialized nation provides in terms of mass open opportunity with upward mobility. We've largely deindustrialized. We desperately need to reindustrialize.

America also needs to treat food as OPEC nations treat oil. We've got a big stick if we're willing to use it. We SHOULD be willing to use it.

Anyway... bottom line... U.S. trade policies should serve the mid-term interests of the average (median income) American. For all this talk of "spend less, live better" (the "Walmarting" of America) there's a larger cost/benefit analysis to consider. Unless one is a very careful shopper indeed, "loss leaders" pose at least as much of a threat to consumers as they provide an opportunity to save.

Again... big picture... long view... America's recent "instant gratification" consumer culture is in my mind not a plus, but a negative; a negative to the nation... a threat to our children and grandchildren.

BILL BARKER
Harriman, NY

 

MARTY MARTEL

1:01 PM ET

October 22, 2010

China will tame U.S.

Since this article by Clyde Prestowitz is classified in ‘History Lesson’, a bit of history is indeed in order.

China was a pariah country in the world, just like today’s North Korea until that Nixon visit. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting.

Had it not been for that Nixon embrace in 1972, China’s economic miracle would have been far more slower with all the US, West European and East Asian markets closed to cheap Chinese products. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s technological progress would have been far slower in the absence of West’s technology transfers. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s military progress would have been far slower in the absence of huge forex reserves that China accumulated from the massive exports of cheap Chinese products and China used those forex reserves to acquire latest military technology.

Coming back to Mr. Prestowitz’s article, it is China that will tame US. In this day and age of MAD (mutually assured destruction) thanks to nuclear weapon stockpiles, second cold war has now started between US and China.

If US had a upper hand in the first cold war against Soviet Union, then China has a upper hand against US in this second cold war. China has US by its tail - US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Sears, Home Depot or Macy’s filled with Chinese goods proves and US government is hooked to huge investments that China makes in US treasuries.

Little could Mao or even Deng have imagined that by wearing a capitalist mask, their followers will beat capitalists at their own game. Lenin used to say that ’capitalists will sell us the ropes with which we will hang them’. With the West selling such ropes (in the form of technology transfers), China has proved that Lenin saying quite prophetic.

Nixon’s embrace of China to counter Soviet Union has come back to haunt US in the form of second cold war just as Reagan’s embrace of Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in Afghanistan came back to haunt US in the form of 9/11 attacks.

What goes around, comes around indeed.

 

PUBLICUS

6:34 PM ET

October 24, 2010

When WW III comes around

CPC/PRC Army General Chi Haotian writing on June 6, 2009 stated that "World War III is not far from us and is the midwife of the Chinese century." That's World War 3 this lunatic is talking openly of.

The US government is trying hard to avoid wars of currencies and trade and a Second Cold War because we know the dopes in Beijing who compulsively must say things such as dogs in kennels getting the stuffing beat out of us state a mentality that, as the author points out, is an aggressive and intransigent one.

During the 1980s I met some smart and highly competent people in the Reagan administration but, unfortunately, I never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Prestowitz. (Lawrence Korb is another of the delightful finds apart from the Reagan Cro-Mangnon types who grabbed all the headlines.)

I'm going to buy his book, however, I'm just not confident all of the geniuses of the world can stop the Chinese absolute certainty they were created to command and rule all that is under (their) 5000 year old fantasy heaven. Fortunately not all Chinese are inflicted by this menacing disorder and syndrome, but far too many still remain irreversibly deluded in this way.