1/8 This Caixin article summarizes various proposals by Chinese academics on how to respond to Trump's tariffs. Most of these proposals focus on boosting domestic demand, but some involve expanding "free-trade" relationships with other countries, which... caixinglobal.com/2025-04-18/in-…
2/8 basically means that if the US stops absorbing China's growing trade surplus, China should ensure that other countries (mainly Europe) do so instead.
But this misses the point. Dozens of countries have already raised tariffs on Chinese goods, and this is likely to worsen.
3/8 Of course if other countries refuse to replace the US as the consumer of last resort of China's manufacturing expansion, the resulting contraction in China's trade surplus requires either that domestic production decline or that domestic demand rise.
4/8 Because the former means a contraction in GDP and a rise in unemployment, the latter is obviously the preferred and only sustainable solution, and nearly every Chinese economist recognizes this. China simply cannot continue running such a low consumption share of GDP.
5/8 How to raise domestic demand? There is one proposal to expand investment in infrastructure, but most Chinese economists recognize that infrastructure investment has already passed reasonable limits, and so other proposals are aimed mainly at consumption.
6/8 Most of these proposals correctly focus on current transfers, and these are really the only kind of proposals that are likely to boost consumption in the near term, although they do so at the cost of rising government debt. One economist argues, for example, that...
7/8 "the government should consider issuing another 1 trillion yuan in ultra-long special treasury bonds to pay for unemployment benefits, food vouchers for low-income individuals, and providing living allowances to college and university graduates."
8/8 Is 1 trillion enough? The hope is that a big enough spending boost becomes self-reinforcing if it encourages local manufacturers to expand production, hire workers and raise wages. But for that to happen, consumption must rise by more than the decline in foreign demand.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/5 Reuters: "Policymakers have to walk a tight rope as the yuan has come under pressure after U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught, while shrinking interest margins at lenders has continued to limit the scope for monetary easing." reuters.com/markets/rates-…
2/5 Reuters adds that "A reduction to the banks' deposit rates could alleviate net interest margin pressure at lenders and allow them to lower lending rates," but this also shows why rebalancing is so difficult.
3/5 While lowering the deposit rate would indeed allow banks to lower lending rates without squeezing their margins further, it represents a further transfer of income from net lenders in the system (households) to net borrowers (businesses and governments).
1/5 WSJ: "In the two weeks since President Trump’s “Liberation Day,” many U.S. trade partners have a clear plan to convince Washington against reimposing stiff tariffs on their exports to the U.S.: buy more American stuff."
2/5 Getting foreigners to "buy more American stuff" may seem like an obvious way to resolve US trade imbalances, but it isn't. Trade clears systemically, and without changing the domestic policies that drive savings imbalances, trade imbalances won't change.
3/5 If foreigners agree to buy more specific goods from the US, this simply shifts US imbalances between countries and sectors, without changing them in the aggregate. That's because as long as they produce more than they can invest or consume domestically, they must...
1/4 Because the only sustainable way to rebalance the Chinese economy towards a greater role for consumption in driving demand requires that household income, including transfers, rise faster than GDP, it is good news that... english.news.cn/20250416/47426…
2/4 China's per capita disposable income increased by 5.6% (5.5% nominal) year on year in the first quarter of 2025, versus GDP growth of 5.4%.
The problem is that the gap between GDP growth and household income growth must be much larger.
3/4 For China to balance meaningfully over the next ten years, for example, consumption must grow by roughly 3 percentage points more than GDP every year, which suggests that household income must also grow that much faster. carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/09/…
1/8 China's GDP growth for the first quarter of 2025 came in above expectations on a year-on-year basis and below expectations on a quarter-on-quarter basis, which shows how hard it is to reconcile the two.
2/8 At 5.4% year on year, compared to 5.3% in 2024, economic activity in the first quarter of 2025 was disproportionately driven by a surge in exports. On a quarter on quarter basis GDP growth was only 1.2%, however, below expectations and well below last year's 1.5%.
3/8 Much of the growth occurred in March. Retail sales and industrial production both grew much faster than expected, with the former rising 5.9% year on year (compared with 4.0% in the first two months), and the latter rising 7.7% (compared with 5.9% in the first two months).
1/10
WSJ: "Around this time, less developed parts of the world, where labor costs were much lower, began dialing up manufacturing of nondurable goods in Latin America and Asia. The U.S. started importing more and more of those items."
2/10
I think this is a common misperception. It is not low wages abroad that drove manufacturing out of the US. After all Japanese wages in the late 1980s matched or even exceeded American wages, and yet Japan nonetheless absorbed a great deal of manufacturing from the US.
3/10
What is more, the most successful manufacturing exporters to the US were not the countries with the lowest wages, but often countries, like Japan and Germany, with the highest wages.
That's because what matters is wages relative to productivity.
1/6 SCMP: "Yu has been outspoken in his advocacy for the reduction of China’s US Treasury bill holdings and has advised Beijing to stay alert for any attempts to use the country’s foreign assets against it."
2/6 It won't be easy for China to shift away from US assets, but to the extent it tries, this could create a new set of tensions within the global trading system. That's because every year China must acquire enormous amounts of foreign assets to balance its surplus.
3/6 In the past these foreign assets have mostly been in the US, but if China were to start buying non-US assets while, at the same time, selling off part of its existing US holdings, this would mean a major redirection of asset purchases, mainly to the EU and Japan.