1/ They've said this many times before, Noah, but things have been getting consistently worse, not better. The amount of debt it takes to generate a unit of GDP has been growing rapidly, even as GDP growth has slowed, and within Beijing there is a fierce debate about whether...
2/ or not they should take aggressive steps to get debt under control, even if this results in much slower growth and a rise in unemployment. Last year for example there was a big debate over whether to target 6% GDP growth or something much lower. If they did not think the...
3/ debt were a serious problem, and if they believed that Chinese growth was healthy, real and meaningful, why would they even bother having this debate?
The biggest disagreement I have with the Economist, I would say, is over their failure to understand the sources of...
4/ Chinese debt and why the debt burden matters. They seem to think that the fact that China has avoided a financial crisis means that debt isn't that big of a problem, whereas I would argue that China was never likely to have a financial crisis, not because debt isn't a...
5/ problem but rather because financial crises are balance-sheet events, and with its closed banking system and strong regulators, Beijing can restructure liabilities at will and so can quite easily prevent a balance-sheet crisis.
The real test is whether it is possible for...
6/ China to maintain high growth rates without much faster growth in the debt that must fund huge amounts of non-productive investment. These two are related, of course, because if most debt goes to fund investment, and if the investment is productive, there is no way a...
7/ country's debt-to-GDP ratio can grow so rapidly and for so long.
But if anything is clear, it is that China simply cannot tolerate any slowdown in the growth in debt without suffering a very, very sharp slowdown in GDP growth. We know from the history of investment-driven...
8/ growth "miracles" that the problem always arises once total debt stops growing faster than GDP. In that case the country either adjusts in the form of a crisis or in the form of "lost decades" of much slower growth, and a considerable part of that adjustment consists of...
9/ writing down years and years of misallocated investment that was capitalized when it should have been expensed (similar to what Galbraith referred to as the "bezzle").
That, by the way, is one of the main differences between growing debt in China and growing debt in...
10/ the US, Europe and elsewhere. In the former case the expenditures are capitalized and show up as increases in wealth, but not in the latter cases.
We have no idea of how long China can sustain this growth in debt, but we also know that the longer it goes on, the more...
11/ difficult the adjustment will be. Until then, nothing has really changed, in my opinion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/15
Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux argue that the US trade deficit doesn't matter because it is simply the flip side of foreign investment into productive facilities in the US, and these create jobs and economic value for the US.
2/15
"If Japanese tech-investing firm SoftBank invests $100 billion in the U.S.," they write, "as SoftBank acquires dollars to fund the investment, the value of the dollar will rise relative to what it would have been without the investment, the cost of U.S. exports...
3/15
will rise, the cost of U.S. imports will fall, and the country’s trade deficit will rise. Fortunately, foreign capital investment creates American jobs and fuels economic growth no less than do foreign purchases of American exports."
1/7 WSJ: "The top 10% of earners in the U.S. now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%."
It is surging stock and property markets that seem to drive their disproportionate spending.
2/7 This is very worrying. US consumption spending seems to depend heavily on the creation of what Charles Munger described as "bezzle", expanding John Kenneth Galbraith's definition of the word to describe a temporary, unsustainable increase in wealth.
3/7 This means that growth in the US economy has become overly reliant on even faster growth in the value of stocks and property, and of course in the longer term, the latter can only grow as fast as the former.
1/6 "The fact that a tax on imports is effectively a tax on exports is a famous result in economics. It was formally proved by Abba Lerner in 1936 but it was obvious long before then that there must be an intimate connection between exports and imports."
2/6 It's not really a famous result in economics. It is a famous result in economic modeling, but the idea that there is a symmetric relationship between changes in exports and imports is constantly violated in the behavior of real economies.
3/6 This shouldn't surprise us. Like many economic models, The conclusions of Lerner's symmetry theorem may seem striking, but in fact they are a trivial restatement of the wholly unrealistic assumptions that are needed to make the model work.
2/8 This means that in a hyperglobalized world (Dani Rodrik's phrase) if some countries implement policies that create internal imbalances, they also create the very external imbalances that must be absorbed by their trading partners.
3/8 In that case their trading partners don't "choose" to run trade deficits. They have no choice but to balance the trade surpluses of their trade partners.
Just as every country cannot "choose" its external imbalance, it also cannot "choose" its internal imbalance.
1/7 According to China Banking News, "Xi wants to win the Sino-US trade war by splurging on consumption." It notes that "even prior to an imminent Trump presidency, Beijing had been working on policy designs to drive growth in domestic consumption."
2/7 "Those policies," it goes on to say, "helped to ensure that China’s end consumption expenditures made a 44.5% contribution to economic growth in 2024, driving a 2.2 percentage point rise in national GDP."
3/7 In fact this shows just how difficult it has been to boost consumption, and how confused most analysts are about that difficulty. For consumption to contribute only 44.5% of GDP growth in 2024 is terrible.
Consumption currently accounts for 55% of China's GDP.
1/16
According to the New York Times, "U.S. officials are considering whether they can strike a deal with China that would ramp up its purchases of American goods and investments in the United States."
2/16
This is an example of why it is so mistaken to think about trade incrementally rather than systematically. Even if the US were to strike a deal in which China would commit to buying more US goods (and assuming China keeps...
3/16
its end of the deal), this would have no material impact on the Chinese trade surplus, the US trade deficit, American wages, or the continued decline in the US share of global manufacturing.