1/11
While many analysts see the most recent NBS data release – with retail sales showing the first monthly year-on-year increase in 2020 and industrial production up 5.6% year on year in August – as evidence of a “solid” economic recovery in China, this graph shows just how...
2/11
lop-sided and vulnerable this recovery has been. Before 2020, retail sales – which is a proxy for consumption, although it includes other things – had grown slightly faster than industrial production, suggesting a slow rebalancing in an economy that urgently needed to...
3/11
rebalance, but in 2020 that relationship has completely reversed, with industrial production growing so much faster than retail sales that it threatens to derail the last few years of limited rebalancing.
If the production side of the economy were the constraint in...
4/11
China’s economic growth, as it had been in the 1980s and 1990s, then it would be legitimate to conclude anyway that China had recovered. But even Beijing has publicly admitted for over a decade that the real constraint is the demand side of the economy, specifically...
5/11
domestic consumption and the private sector investment driven by domestic consumption.
Not only have these barely recovered, but what many analysts are missing is that even this limited recovery has been driven by Beijing’s substantial boosting of the production side of...
6/11
the economy. By expanding public sector investment in logistics and infrastructure, underwriting an expansion of credit to businesses, and otherwise subsidizing production, Beijing has bolstered production to create the employment that has indirectly boosted consumption...
7/11
Put differently, economic recovery in China (and the world, more generally) requires a recovery in demand that pulls along with it a recovery in supply. But that isn’t what is happening. Instead Beijing is pushing hard on the supply side (mainly...
8/11
because it wants to lower unemployment as quickly as possible) in order to pull demand along with it. The problem with this strategy, as I have been writing since May, is that either it is resolved by a rapid increase in China’s trade surplus, which weakens the...
9/11
recovery abroad and forces an increase in foreign debt burdens, or it is resolved by faster growth in Chinese public-sector investment, which, because most of it is no longer productive, increases the Chinese debt burden. And this is exactly what we have been...
10/11
seeing in the data.
China’s “recovery”, in other words, is simply an exacerbation of the problems that have long been recognized. It isn’t sustainable, and unless Beijing moves quickly to redistribute domestic income, as I explain below, it will... carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancial…
11/11
either require slower growth abroad or an eventual reversal of domestic growth once Chinese debt can no longer rise fast enough to hide the domestic demand problem.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/9 This interesting Soumaya Keynes piece makes several important points about the success (or lack) of Trump's tariff policies, but I think she makes one important mistake in assessing the impact of tariffs that too many other analysts also make. ft.com/content/7b5303…
2/9 She seems to argue that tariffs are ineffective to the extent that they are "paid for" by American consumers rather than by foreign exporters.
But this gets it backwards. Tariffs are in fact effective mainly to the extent that they are paid for by American consumers.
3/9 That's because if tariffs are to succeed in rebalancing the economy towards more domestic production and fewer foreign imports, they must do so by changing the income balance between domestic production and domestic consumption.
1/6 FT: "“This is a structural transformation of Japan,” says an economist who has tracked the country’s three-decade-long struggle to emerge from deflation. “It is a shift from being a demand-shortage economy to a supply-shortage economy.”" ft.com/content/397c04…
2/6 Being a "supply-shortage economy" is not a good thing either, because the only sustainable way to grow consumption is to grow production, but it is important that it took Japan 35 years of weak growth and a collapse in its share of global manufacturing for it to adjust.
3/6 It's more "normal" for countries with excessively low consumption shares to adjust much more quickly and brutally, but while "slow" Japanese-style adjustments are often economically much more costly over the longer term, socially and politically they are much less costly.
1/6 Good SCMP article that illustrates one dilemma facing the Chinese economy: "While official manufacturing data for June showed continued expansion, electronics exporters in the region – one of China’s biggest industrial areas and a bellwether for the... sc.mp/l1qix?utm_sour…
2/6 national economy – said last week that a pickup in orders had yet to lift their bottom lines."
Or, as a friend who owns a medium-sized manufacturing business in China puts it: "Why is it so hard to find the happy people you'd expect to find in an economy growing at 5%?"
3/6 Analysts often say that China's soaring exports and its widening trade surplus are the bright spots for the economy, but it's not as simple as that. These are brights spots in the sense that they contribute to economic activity and allow China to keep production growing.
1/10
The FT's Edward White argues that China urgently needs someone to close down huge swathes of China's inefficient and money-losing industries, much as former premier Zhu Rongji did in the late 1990s and early 2000s. ft.com/content/9c4fe0…
2/10
In the former case, he writes, "the cuts ripped through China’s north-eastern rustbelt. Thousands of mines, steel mills and other industrial sites were shut for good. An estimated 30mn to 40mn workers lost their jobs."
3/10
White notes that today, "the share of lossmaking industrial businesses jumped from about 10 per cent in 2010 to nearly 25 per cent last year. This dynamic exists across everything from steel and cement to cars, computer chips and robots."
1/8 FT: "That said, “the weakness in consumption is more structural”, Logan Wright added."
He's right. Every month there are incremental explanations as to why consumption was weak "last month", but the problem is not temporary. It is structural. ft.com/content/7db729…
2/8 The property sector can stabilize, the Iran war can end, the weather can get better, a new toy fad can emerge, Beijing can launch another consumption program, but while these may all cause temporary increases in consumption, overall consumption will continue to struggle.
3/8 The reason, as I've argued for years, is that China's low consumption is not an accident or an oversight. It is fundamental to the way the economy works. It is China's low household share of GDP that drives both its low consumption share and the "competitiveness" of...
1/4 This OECD study is likely to have an important effect on global trade discussions, but its worth noting that its measure of the extent of Chinese subsidies do not include two of the most important subsidies that drive the global competitiveness of Chinese manufacturing.
2/4 The first and most obvious is the undervalued currency, which is the functional equivalent of a tax on imports and a subsidy for exports. Because it is hard to quantify the exact extent of the undervaluation of the RMB, most subsidy measures exclude it.
3/4 The second is the financial subsidy. The study does try to quantify the extent to which certain manufacturers are able to borrow below "market" rates, but when the market rate itself is repressed, with nearly all credit being directed to...