Michael Pettis Profile picture
Dec 29 7 tweets 2 min read Read on X
1/7
This Yicai article discusses a very interesting statement by prominent economist Teng Tai. Like a rising number of Chinese economists, Teng calls for transferring resources out of investment and into household income.

yicaiglobal.com/news/china-sho…
2/7
But he proposes it at a higher scale than others. The key, he says, "is to save around CNY20 trillion to CNY30 trillion of inefficient, ineffective, and excess investment each year, and convert it into disposable incomes and subsequently into consumption."
3/7
China currently invests around RMB 50-55 trillion every year. Teng seems to be suggesting that well over a third of this is "inefficient, ineffective, and excess investment", or substantially more than half of the aggregate investment in property and infrastructure.
4/7
He may be right. China's very weak domestic demand and its soaring debt are the consequences of years of implicit and explicit transfers from households to subsidize investment that in the part 10-15 years has grown increasingly "inefficient, ineffective, and excessive".
5/7
By now, like Teng, most Chinese economists recognize that shifting to a sustainable growth model requires a reversal of those transfers. This is the only way to increase the consumption share of GDP sustainably which, in turn, will increase productive private investment.
6/7
But no one seems to be discussing why this will be so difficult. Such a massive shift of economic activity from local governments and SOEs to households requires deep and painful institutional changes, and while this may be happening, it is happening at a glacial pace.
7/7
Perhaps the discussion will progress. I don't know how much influence Teng has on policymaking, but what is interesting to me is that we are seeing almost on a daily basis articles in the official press calling for a shift from excess investment to consumption.

• • •

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

Dec 28
1/9
The Guardian's editors write about the US dollar, but it's not clear they understand how the dollar works. "Today," they say, "the dollar’s exorbitant privilege comes with a heavy burden of duty."

That's true.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2/9
But then they say: "US consumers and businesses get benefits in exchange for Washington providing a security guarantee and being the lender of last resort to the world. If Washington rejected these costs, it would erode demand for its currency, and so its leadership role."
3/9
That's not quite true. While US consumers do benefit from dollar dominance, the real burden is not from US security commitments. The burden is the economic cost. US dollar dominance is bad for American workers, farmers and businesses, because it undermines US competitiveness.
Read 9 tweets
Dec 26
1/8
The East is Read has translated the third and, I believe, final part of Li Daokui's speech. The most interesting part to me is his calculation of a negative correlation between the level of local-government debt and provincial growth rates: "an increase in debt...
2/8
by 10%," he says, "correlates with a 0.1% decrease in the GDP growth rate and a 0.7% reduction in Total Factor Productivity over the same period, reinforcing the negative relationship between local government debt and economic growth."
3/8
Li argued that most of the local-government debt was used to fund infrastructure investment, and for those who believe that the past several years of infrastructure investment was positive in the aggregate for growth, this should be a pretty surprising finding.
Read 8 tweets
Dec 26
1/6
Recently, as this FT article notes, the influence of the PBoC on economic policymaking seems to have declined. This became particularly noticeable in March when the PBoC was subordinated to the Central Financial Commission.

via @ftft.com/content/b809c7…
2/6
The positive way of seeing this is to hope that Beijing will finally become more aggressive in reining in debt, redistributing income from local governments to households, and reducing the economy's reliance on investment to maintain economic activity.
3/6
Because this will be politically very contentious and will almost certainly involve a significant slowing down of the economy, bringing the PBoC under stricter control would be part of Beijing's streamlining policy and unifying the economic decision-making apparatus.
Read 6 tweets
Dec 24
1/8
Good piece by Noah Smith on applying Robert Solow's growth model to the Chinese economy. His argument is that the benefits of additional investment in infrastructure suffer from diminishing returns, while costs don't (they may actually increase).

noahpinion.blog/p/what-the-sol…
2/8
In that case it is just an arithmetical necessity that at some point the overall economic cost of additional investment is greater than the overall economic benefit, in which case building more infrastructure actually makes you poorer, not richer.
3/8
But I would add something more to this analysts. Many analysts respond (or at least they used to respond) to the Solow model by pointing out that per capita investment in China is much lower than it is in the US.
Read 8 tweets
Dec 23
1/8
Bloomberg says: "The dollar’s supremacy has helped the US keep a lid on funding costs and run budget deficits, as trading partners put their dollars in US government bonds."

This is not true.

via @marketsbloomberg.com/news/articles/…
2/8
This widespread misperception comes from thinking about the balance of payments incrementally rather than systemically.

Foreigners don't invest in the US in order to help fund a US trade deficit. They invest in the US as a way of hoarding their excess savings.
3/8
But their inflows nonetheless have an effect on the US economy. They must be balanced by an increase in the gap between US investment and US savings.

If US businesses were constrained by scarce domestic savings and rising interest rates, these inflows might fund investment.
Read 8 tweets
Dec 22
1/9
The East is Read has just published a translation of an interesting recent speech by Tsinghua's Li Daokui. He makes four points that I think are especially important. Given his prominence, I think his lecture shows how views in China have changed.

eastisread.com/p/chinas-local…
2/9
The first point has to do with the sheer extent of local-government debt. Local government debt, he claims, has been seriously undercounted: "Our analysis revealed that in 2020, China's local government debt approached 90 trillion yuan, equal to to 88% of GDP at that time."
3/9
He adds: "This estimate significantly surpasses those commonly cited by most scholars. For instance, the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank typically estimate it around 60 trillion yuan, or roughly 50% of GDP."
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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(