U.S. put on own in chilly summit |

U.S. put on own in chilly summit

SEOUL — The United States apparently will have to go it alone in dealing with its fragile economy andnear-double-digit unemployment after the Group of 20 summit ended Friday with no commitment to immediate action to reduce trade and currency tensions.

A U.S. proposal to set numerical limits on trade surpluses and deficits was rejected. Leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies pledged only to develop “indicative guidelines” to assess imbalances in the first half of 2011.

They refused to endorse a U.S. effort to force China to raise the value of its currency.

“Any sense of global solidarity looks to have been yesterday’s story,” said Tim Condon, chief economist at ING Financial Markets in Singapore.

In their final declaration, leaders did pledge to work together and to refrain from protectionism and competitive devaluation of currencies. But the lack of speedy, specific actions on how to do so left the Obama administration — along with American workers, families and businesses — to shoulder the challenge and pain of trying to solve the nation’s economic problems on its own.

“Obama is now in a position where he must be prepared to act unilaterally to reduce the trade deficit and to shore up U.S. industrial and technological competitiveness or risk losing not only the presidency in two years, but also the American dream,” said Clyde Prestowitz, a former Reagan administration trade negotiator who is president of the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington.

There are several possible scenarios.

Exporting giants, including China, Germany, South Korea and Japan, could still decide that it is in their interest to do more to bolster the American economy. If growth remains low, with the unemployment rate high and incomes stagnant, U.S. consumers could cut back on purchases of imported goods, which could hit the exporting nations hard because there are no alternative markets to absorb their output.

If demand for their products drops, the leaders who humbled Obama in Seoul might decide to take some action.

Another possibility is that American consumers will return to their free-spending ways, as a recent surge in imports suggests they might. That would mean more credit card and other debt, as well as the potential for another financial crisis, unless spending power accelerates. But with the unemployment rate seemingly stuck near 10 percent and businesses guarding their profit margins, a hefty round of income increases looks like a long shot.

A third possible scenario, perhaps the most likely, is that the U.S. economy will continue to struggle, growing slowly in a climate of widespread joblessness and belt-tightening for government and citizens alike.

Even without congressional approval, Obama could still cite China as a currency manipulator if Beijing doesn’t move faster in adjusting its undervalued yuan. That would set in motion a process that could lead to sanctions. His administration could apply tariffs on certain imports or undertake a Buy American program, as Ohio has done for government business.

Such actions are fraught with political as well as economic risks. As British Prime Minister David Cameron warned Thursday, the result could be a dangerous return to the 1930s, when trade barriers, currency wars and other selfish actions by nations was said to have prolonged the global depression.

Although nations now have the tools to defuse a standoff, the possibility of a currency war “absolutely” remains, Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega said at the conclusion of the two-day summit.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed similar concern, saying, “G-20 credibility does depend on showing results.”

Obama sought to put an optimistic face on the talks.

“Sometimes I think naturally there’s an instinct to focus on the disagreements,” the president said, when in fact, “in each of these successive summits we’ve actually made progress.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.