1/6
This FT article suggests that foreign investors can help prop up the US Treasury market as the Fed begins to cut back on its bond buying, but I disagree. I would argue that this idea of foreign "support" of the US bond market is based...
ft.com/content/47551b…
2/6
on viewing US debt incrementally, rather than systemically.

An important series of papers by @profsufi, @AtifRMian and @ludwigstraub have already shown that in the US, when rising income inequality causes an increase in the savings of the...
scholar.harvard.edu/files/straub/f…
3/6
rich, this paradoxically does not lead to more US savings but rather to more US debt among lower income Americans. I argued in my 2013 book that this is because US investment is not constrained at all by scarce savings, and so more savings cannot result in more investment.
4/6
In that case there cannot be more savings overall either, and so the economy must adjust in some other way to prevent overall savings from rising. It usually does this in the form of higher unemployment or (much more likely) higher household or fiscal debt.
5/6
The same thing happens with foreign inflows into the US bond market. Because they too do not cause US investment to rise, the US economy adjusts to foreign inflows either by raising unemployment or (again, more likely) by creating more household or fiscal debt.
6/6
Counterintuitive as it may at first seem, when foreigners export their excess savings to the US, or when rising income inequality causes rich Americans to save more, the total pool of savings available does not rise. Put differently, foreign inflows cancel themselves out.

• • •

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

23 Sep
1/13
Very good article by @greg_ip on the tradeoff China must make between debt and growth. He notes that as China tries to repress investment in non-productive areas, “If this ultimately funnels credit to more productive uses, that would be...
wsj.com/articles/everg… via @WSJ
2/13
positive for Chinese growth in the long run.” He then suggests that Beijing might find it harder than ever to do this because of its recent efforts to “to rein in market forces, steer the flow of capital and restrict how entrepreneurs and investors make profits.”
3/13
He’s probably right, but I would add that even without these recent efforts, funneling credit to more productive uses was always much easier said than done. In the first place the amount of investment that has to be funneled from less productive uses, like...
Read 13 tweets
23 Sep
1/14
Very thoughtful (as usual) piece by @adam_tooze on observing the Evergrande observers. He asks, at the end, "What if this is actually what a shifting of economic gears looks like?"

adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-on…
2/14
I think Evergrande is more of a premonition of the shifting of gears than the beginning. What typically seems to happen with the high-savings/high-investment development model is that countries start off with many years of high growth and low debt, but as they close...
3/14
the gap between actual investment and desired investment (i.e. the amount of investment they can productively absorb), rather than adjust the model they typically maintain high investment rates.
Read 14 tweets
22 Sep
1/4
Damned if you do, damned if you don't: "At least eight cities in mainland China have come up with measures to prevent developers from offering excessively cheap homes to stabilise the market and prevent a collapse in prices."
scmp.com/business/china… via @scmpnews
2/4
The article lists many ways in which local officials fear that lower housing prices would be harmful to the economy, including its adverse impact on local government revenues. They are right, of course, but the alternative – ever rising prices – is worse in the medium term.
3/4
This problem emerged over a decade ago, or at least that's how long I have been writing about it, but even when it finally became clear to everyone that soaring housing prices were a problem, the costs of resolving it always seemed higher than...
Read 4 tweets
21 Sep
1/5
Good article on the consequences of reducing housing speculation. The housing market is so distorted that there is no question Beijing must act, but after having postponed action for so many years, whatever it does is likely to be costly.

ft.com/content/4b179c…
2/5
I think, for example, that it will be very difficult for them to stabilize property prices, even if stabilizing them at such painfully high levels were the right thing to do. Highly speculative markets rarely stabilize: they either rise or decline.
3/5
On the other hand, if prices start to decline, Beijing would either have to put in measures that made it difficult to sell, or risk a rapid drop in prices.
Read 5 tweets
20 Sep
1/4
Another useful article by Zhou Xin. Among other things he estimates that Evergrande's on- and off-balance sheet obligations may amount to as much as 3% of China's annual GDP. That's a lot of debt.
scmp.com/economy/china-… via @scmpnews
2/4
But none of this is new. Many of us have know for years (some of us for over a decade) that the property-development sector was creating a very serious imbalance in the Chinese economy, and this includes a number of regulators and policy advisors.
3/4
So why didn't Beijing act sooner to reverse the problem? Perhaps because, as Albert Hirschman used to point out, the constituencies that benefit disproportionately from unbalanced growth are often powerful enough politically to block attempts to reverse these imbalances.
Read 4 tweets
20 Sep
1/9
The idea that more efficiency in financial markets is by definition a good thing is based on an unrealistic model of financial markets in which the only thing that drives capital is a search for productive investment in the real economy.
ft.com/content/983bc6…
2/9
If markets are inefficient enough – i.e. frictional costs high enough – to distort the flow of capital to its most productive use in the real economy, then it makes sense to implement policies that lower fictional costs. This can only improve the capital allocation mechanism.
3/9
But at a certain point frictional costs become so low that they have almost no impact on the way capital is allocated to productive investment. In that case, lowering frictional costs further only benefits speculative, high-turnover capital and the derivatives market.
Read 9 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!

:(