2/10
"China is a creditor country; its debts are overwhelmingly in its own currency; and its government owns all the important banks. A policy of financial repression would work quite well."
Beijing, in other words, can always manage to service debt through hidden transfers.
3/10
"The danger is rather one of chronically weak demand. The investment rate is already spectacularly high, while growth is slowing. Still higher non-property investment cannot be justified."
That's the key point. Weak demand is at the heart of China's many economic problems.
4/10
Even with its excessively high investment rate, China suffers from weak domestic demand mainly because the consumption share of GDP is so extraordinarily low, and this will be made all the more difficult as China is forced by debt to bring down the growth rate of investment.
5/10
China must bring down its savings rate by 10-15 percentage points of GDP, Wolf points out, and it has no choice: one way or another it will. But there are broadly two ways this can happen. The bad way is with a sharp drop in GDP growth.
6/10
In that case GDP growth would fall more sharply than consumption growth, with the result being a reduction in the savings share of GDP. This could happen quickly, as with the US in the early 1930s, or slowly, as with Japan in the 2-3 decades after 1990.
7/10
The good way is with a sharp rise in consumption growth. But, as Wolf pints out, what drives such low consumption is mainly the low household income share of GDP. So more rapid consumption growth requires more rapid household income growth.
8/10
But how to raise growth in household income while reducing growth in the very investment that has so substantially underpinned economic activity?
The only way is through transfers. China must transfer roughly 1.5% of GDP every year from local governments to households.
9/10
That's why it is so difficult. For decades China has built its economy around hidden transfers from households – in the form of weak wage growth, low real interest rates, undervalued currencies, etc. – that subsidized Chinese investment and its manufacturing competitiveness.
10/10
Not only must these transfers be eliminated, they must be reversed. That almost certainly requires a major restructuring of the economy, along with the political, business, legal and financial institutions that were built around 2-3 decades of these transfers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/16
I agree that raising wages in the US would create problems for US manufacturing, Greg, but for different reasons than those you suggest, and so would argue for a very different set of solutions.
2/16
My argument is not that protection automatically raises wages in every country and under any condition. Nothing in economics works like that. My argument is over the problem of raising wages.
3/16
In a world in which countries "compete" by repressing unit labor costs, manufacturing and the production of tradable goods automatically gravitates to those countries that repress labor the costs most.
1/9 To say that wages can't go up because productivity isn't rising may have the causality backwards. Productivity rose most quickly in the US when its wages were the highest in the world and its manufacturers were protected, either by very...
2/9 high tariffs (before WW2) or by the need of the world to import US capital (between WW2 and the 1970s). That is why American businesses during this time benefitted from surging domestic demand and invested so heavily in improving productivity. Wages during this time surged.
3/9 Since the 1970s, however, rather than lower unit labor costs by investing in productivity-enhancing technology, US businesses could do so much more easily and effectively by relocating production into a country that wanted to turbocharge growth by subsidizing manufacturing...
1/17
It's hard for most of us to understand structural issues that drive an economy, and we much prefer to personalize them, blaming problems on bad leaders or vicious habits, but in doing so on the subject of China's economic slowdown, those of us who...
2/17
failed to understand the problems China already faced 10-15 years ago, and who weren't sufficiently skeptical about the prevailing China hype, are simply creating a new way of misunderstanding the Chinese economy.
3/17
According to this article, "most, though not all, China watchers point to Xi himself as the instigator of the recent changes" that have led to the rapid reversal of China's growth momentum. Beijing's anti-market policies in the past 3-5 years, they say, explain the reversal.
1/5 Interesting piece by Daniel Gros who notes that "if savings remain at their current level (over 40% of GDP), but investment falls to 30% of GDP, China would have to maintain a current-account surplus of ten percentage points of GDP."
2/5 But while true by definition, this is very unlikely. To drive down investment to 30% of GDP, even if it took ten years, GDP growth would have to drop to nearly zero if consumption growth were maintained at 4%, and obviously to less than zero if consumption growth slowed.
3/5 For investment to contract much more quickly than savings probably requires a financial crisis and a collapse in growth. In that case, as occurred with Brazil in the 1980s, China's current account surplus would surge.
1/5 Very good article that is really about how real-estate problems spread through the economy because of the ways in which businesses, households, financial institutions and local governments were leveraged (often not explicitly) to the property sector.
2/5 They were over-leveraged to property for structural reasons. In any system in which there is a wide range of risk appetites, those who take too much risk relative to a particular asset will succeed disproportionately as long as that asset price keeps rising. Those who take...
3/5 too little risk lose market share.
After 30-40 years of rising property prices, it was inevitable that the economy shift towards both explicit and implicit bets on the property sector, especially as this grew to become a disproportionately large part of the total economy
1/7 Good article comparing China today with Japan in the late 1980s, but I think this understates the problem: "President Xi Jinping is ideologically opposed to increasing government support for households and consumers, which he derides as “welfarism.”"
2/7 The problem isn't whether or not Xi personally supports boosting the household share of GDP. It is much deeper than that.
Again, Japan is a good illustration. Tokyo understood why it had to boost consumption as long ago as 1986, with the release of the Maekawa Report.
3/7 But 37 years later, it is still struggling to implement the measures needed to do so.
The constraint is not the ideological whim of some leader or other. It is the deep institutional changes needed to transform a financial and economic (and, inevitably, political) model...