1/8 I think too few of the senior finance officials in Beijing fully understand the relationship between domestic financial stability and closed financial markets with significant government intervention and moral hazard.
2/8 Chairman Hu Xiaolian of China Exim Bank, for example, is proposing that “By the middle of this century, China might have the world’s biggest, and most open financial market to function with the world’s most inclusive rules and norms promoting international cooperation.”
3/8 But this is unlikely, especially because he also says later that “Instead of being driven by financial speculation in the offshore market, China places an emphasis on a stable exchange rate combined with stable macroeconomic and monetary policies, and this will boost...
4/8 confidence in the yuan and help foreigners accept the currency for its payments.”
But he doesn't seem to understand that it is only because the capital account has been largely closed that the PBoC can manage both currency stability and domestic financial stability.
5/8 What Hu doesn’t recognize is that the latter (a stable exchange rate combined with stable macroeconomic and monetary policies) exists only because the former (the world’s biggest, and most open financial market) doesn’t. These two conditions are incompatible.
6/8 For 15 years Beijing has insisted that China would soon get all the benefits of an internationalized currency and financial markets. This has never happened precisely because for 15 years Beijing has been unwilling to accept the cost of the resulting financial instability.
7/8 The problem is that by now the domestic financial system is so distorted, debt levels so high, balance sheets so mismatched, and technical insolvency so common that Beijing will be unable even to choose former condition over the latter. Not to mention that the amount...
8/8 of “bezzle” in the system (in this case the capitalization of malinvestment that should have been expensed) is so immense that any meaningful adjustment will force some (probably the government) to absorb a huge amount of losses.
Here is an old WSJ article that shows that at least some in the PBoC have always understood the relationship between capital controls and domestic financial stability. It concludes: "The report appears to be a rare acknowledgment by China’s central bank... wsj.com/articles/the-t…
... about the need for controls on capital outflows. Previously, it described its actions as cracking down on speculative outflows."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/8 According to this article: "The US buys a lot more stuff from the rest of the world than the world buys from the US. That difference has to be financed; as a matter of mathematical identity, there has to be an inflow to match that outflow."
2/8 This actually gets it wrong. The implicit assumption is that accounting identities imply a direction of causality, in this case from trade to finance: because the US runs a trade deficit, in other words, it must also run the corresponding capital account surplus to finance...
3/8 the trade deficit.
But this implicitly assumes that the US capital inflows consist primarily of trade finance, which is clearly false. Too many analysts assume as axiomatic that the B-o-P accounting identity tells us that the capital account adjusts to balance the trade...
1/7 This very interesting article by @greg_ip argues that “Latin America, which led developing nations in adopting a market-friendly model of economic development, may now be leading them away from it.”
2/7 This certainly seems to be happening, but I’d add that it was probably quite predictable. In 1996 I published an article that tracked nearly 2 centuries during which Latin American countries had embraced classic capitalist reforms far more strongly... foreignaffairs.com/articles/south…
3/7 than other countries – including the US – ever had, only to reject them a few decades later in favor of a much more interventionist model. This has happened several times in the 19th and 20th centuries and there is no reason to assume that it won’t happen in the 21st.
1/6 TSF rose by 0.6%, or RMB 1.92 trillion, in May, below market expectations. In April it also grew by 0.6%. Most analysts report this as an 11% increase over May 2020, but given last year’s disruptions this is a pretty useless way of measuring it.
2/6 The headline here says that credit is growing more slowly than expected, and this seems to be the consensus, but I disagree. Why? Consider that TSF year to date is up by just over 12% on an annualized basis. If it continues to grow at roughly 0.6% a month on average...
3/6 for the rest of this year, TSF will grow 9.3% in 2021. This is roughly equal to consensus nominal GDP growth expectations, in which case we will have seen a stabilization of China’s debt-to-GDP ratio – something Beijing has promised will happen this year.
1/8 John Cochrane asks about Japan during the past three decades: "If massive deficits, including lots of 'infrastructure' are going to boost the US economy, why did they not do so for Japan?"
2/8 He suggests that if it didn't work in one case it is unlikely to work in the other, but there are obvious differences between the two economies that make their responses incomparable. First, Japan entered this period massively overinvested in infrastructure, whereas most...
3/8 analysts agree that the US is underinvested.
This means that while infrastructure spending in the US is likely to be productive, and so will boost GDP (and, with it, the economy's real debt-servicing capacity) by at least as much as it boosts debt, in Japan much of it...
1/4 The constraint depends on how an increase in debt causes businesses, consumers, producers, lenders and investors to respond. If an increase in debt undermines credibility by increasing uncertainty about how the real cost of the debt...
2/4 will be allocated – and so causes businesses to disinvest, creditors to raise the cost of funding, consumers to reduce spending, policymakers to shorten time horizons, workers to become more militant, farmers to hoard, etc. – more debt means a worsening economy.
3/4 Just because there is no legal constraint on the ability of a government to create money or debt in its own currency doesn't mean that there is also no economic constraint. If debt is used directly or indirectly to fund productive investment, there is no economic...
1/4 Unlike many analysts who thought the 17+1 grouping was a major geopolitical initiative, I've always wondered what its point was beyond political showboating. In today's world of excess savings and weak demand, finding capital to fund profitable...
2/4 investments wasn't likely to be a major problem, in which case the "investment" these countries wanted from China was likely to be non-economic and something China — or anyone else — would be reluctant to provide.
Policymakers act as if we were still in the 1950s, when...
3/4 a major impediment to development is scarce capital. But capital isn't scarce and hasn't been for decades, which is why so many of these bilateral (e.g. the UK) and multilateral deals that promise cross-border investment have been so disappointing (and unnecessary).