1/12

We have to be careful not to misinterpret this point. Chinese investment in Australia peaked in 2016, as the chart shows, before petering off sharply in 2019-20. So of course did Australia's current account deficit, which further swung into surplus by mid-2019 and 2020.
2/12

That is what the graph below shows. In itself this shouldn't be surprising. The current account, after all, is equal to the difference between domestic investment and savings, and by definition net foreign inflows must either raise the former or reduce the latter.
3/12

That is why whether or not Australia's current account deficit is a good thing or not depends on whether it is driven by more overall investment or less overall savings. More foreign inflows into Australia (whether from China or elsewhere) will result in more...
4/12

sustainable growth only if they lead to higher overall investment. But they could just as logically lead to less overall savings, which means Australia would suffer from either more government debt, more household debt, or more unemployment, none of which is a good thing.
5/12

This may seem confusing, but as @M_C_Klein and I explain in our book, it is only because most economists implicitly use obsolete trade models – in which savings are always, and almost by definition scarce – that they assume by default the former.

yalebooks.yale.edu/book/978030024…
6/12

But this is just sloppy thinking. If we live in a world of excess savings and weak demand – and I am pretty sure we do – it doesn't have to be true, and almost never is, that greater net foreign inflows lead to more domestic investment.
7/12

I'm not an expert in the Australian economy, so I welcome any help from the more knowledgeable, but my quick search suggests that it would be hard to make the case that higher Australian current account deficits are driven by higher overall investment.
8/12

Take a look at the following chart, for example, which shows gross capital formation in Australia from 2014 to 2020. Until 2019 there seems to be almost an inverse relationship between Chinese investment in Australia and overall Australian investment:
9/12

So what might this suggest? More Chinese investment in Australia drives, as we would expect, greater Australian current account deficits, but these deficits seem to be driven not by higher overall investment in Australia but rather lower savings.

carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancial…
10/12

Obviously there is a lot more to Australian investment and sustainable growth than what Chinese or foreigners do, but the important point is that, in itself, foreign investment can be good or bad for the economy depending on the kind of investment and whether it causes...
11/12

the economy to adjust to the change in the balance of payments raising overall investment or lowering overall savings. I realize this is highly counterintuitive to most people, but in the following essay I try to explain the conditions under which...
12/12

foreign investment can be good or bad for sustainable growth. Sorry for the very long thread, but I think the topic of foreign investment is one in which most opinions – both pro and con – tend to be far more ideological than logical.

carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancial…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Pettis

Michael Pettis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelxpettis

3 Mar
1/10

Guo Shuqing is right to worry about the impact on Chinese financial stability of a continued flood of foreign capital into China. Once foreigners comprise a significant share, the regulators will no longer be able to forcibly restructure...

reut.rs/3uL8JKc
2/10

liabilities at will in order to address the huge imbalances, insolvencies and mismatches in the Chinese banking system. What is more, the risk of contagion will increasingly run both ways. Chinese markets are thoroughly speculative too, and the only reason they don’t yet...
3/10

matter to the rest of the world is because foreign participation is still low. This will change in the next 1-3 years.

He is also right to worry that the more integrated Chinese financial markets are with the rest of the world, the harder it will be to run independent...
Read 10 tweets
2 Mar
1/4

Guo Shuqing, China's top banking regulator, is worried that "the bubble problem in foreign financial markets will one day pop. China’s market is now highly linked to foreign markets and foreign capital continues to flow in.”

ft.com/content/0c2c22…
2/4

Although foreign participation in Chinese markets is still too low to matter, he is right to worry. China's banking system is rigid, unstable, and largely insolvent, but it was never at much risk of breaking down because of the ability of regulators to isolate it and...
3/4

restructure liabilities at will.

Over time, however, as Chinese financial markets become more integrated into global markets, it will be much harder to suppress adjustment in the domestic financial sector, and so they will become much more like those of typical...
Read 4 tweets
1 Mar
1/6

Lou Jiwei's claim that the US is monetizing its budget deficit to transfer its debt burden to the rest of the world, especially to developing countries like China, shows just how terribly confused even fairly intelligent people are about the...

scmp.com/economy/china-…
2/6

basics of the balance of payments. Foreigners can only be "forced" to acquire US assets to the extent that their policies result in their running surpluses against US deficits. Saying that the world should not be forced to acquire American assets is exactly the same as...
3/6

saying that the world should not be allowed to run surpluses with the US.

Clearly this is the opposite of what Beijing really wants. As long as Chinese policies result in soaring trade surpluses, it must acquire foreign assets. The reason it acquires American assets is...
Read 6 tweets
26 Feb
1/9

Very interesting article. It seems pretty clear that the point of massively expanding China’s transportation infrastructure over the next 15 years has more to do with the goal of doubling reported GDP over the period than with improving the...

scmp.com/economy/china-…
2/9

economic efficiency of Chinese transportation. China probably already has the best transportation network in the world for its level of development, and almost certainly a more expensive transportation network than is productively justified.
3/9

In that case there are at least three important concerns with this strategy. The first and most obvious is that the doubling of GDP will necessarily involve overstating the comparable value of GDP, so that it becomes a meaningless proxy: GDP may double temporarily, but...
Read 9 tweets
26 Feb
1/7

While it is definitely a good idea to come up with innovative ways to fund needed infrastructure, government funding really isn’t an issue for self-liquidating projects. Consider China’s case. Chinese debt has been rising extremely rapidly since...

ft.com/content/16885b…
2/7

the late 1980s, but no one noticed until roughly two decades later.

Why? Because until then China was severely underinvested in infrastructure and manufacturing capacity, and so while nominal debt rose rapidly, its contribution to real GDP rose just as rapidly. It was...
3/7

only once debt was used to fund investment whose cost exceeded its contribution to the real economy that China’s debt burden began to rise, after which of course additional debt can only be serviced by transfers, and not just by increases in real debt-servicing capacity.
Read 7 tweets
24 Feb
1/11

This article on the the population aspect of Guangdong's 2020-35 plan is very interesting. Even if Guangdong is successful in growing its population by the proposed 0.8% a year between now and 2035, at a time when China's population will...

scmp.com/economy/china-…
2/11

grow annually on average by only 0.1% and, more importantly, its working-age population will contract by 0.5% a year, Guangdong's success can only come at the expense of China's poorer provinces.

This isn't necessarily bad. In principle China should benefit overall...
3/11

from greater labor mobility as workers move from slower-growing provinces to faster-growing ones (and Guangdong will not be the only wealthy province to try do this) but the amount by which it improves depends partly on the extent to which the hukou system is modified.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!