by MrBill » Wed 13 Dec 2006, 04:48:38
Micki wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his would actually give China more reason to wreck the US economy as it would leave more oil for the players left standing and oil prices would most likely drop, so they could even benefit from it.
The only question is if China is strong enough yet to take the ripples a collapsing US would make in the world economy?
There has definetly been more talk lately about China encouraging internal consumption to provide some shield from external drop in demand.
Spear wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f China focuses on internal growth, they dont need the US as a customer.
I can see that international financiers all smell growth in China and are looking for a piece of the pie,but I would also imagine that Chinese financiers vision their yuan as becoming stronger as China grows.
The size of the entire Chinese economy is less than 20% of the USA. No, sorry, the size of the Chinese and Indian economy is less than 20% of the USA in absolute terms. Also, despite rapid growth and an expanding middle class their per capita income is still very low. You cannot monetize purchasing power parity. Absolute size matters.
What China has is cheap labor (i.e. low wages). An appreciating yuan makes that labor more expensive. China imports almost as much foreign energy as the USA in percentage terms (40:60 vs. 60:40) and that percentage is climbing. They have to import most of their inputs for production like many commodities, base metals as well as energy. Those inputs are freely sold on the open market. China cannot buy them cheaper than Japan or the EU or the USA.
If China did not have the USA as a customer then they would also not have $200 billlion per year in trade surpluses either. Poor Chinese workers earning $1-2 per day are not going to displace those export earnings with domestic demand. However, encouraging domestic demand by the middle classes and by sponsoring large public work projects does stimulate the local economy. This would help offset a sharp drop in external demand, but it will not insulate China from the fallout.
Domestic spending financed by government debt was insufficient to pull Japan out of a decade long recession/low growth period, but it ruined their public finances if you look at their debt to GDP ratio. Even though Japanese companies continued to export and external reserves grew. Or look at it another way. Everything done by companies like Toyoto who were market oriented and focussed on winning exports through understanding their customers and quality were successful, while everything done locally in Japan by the MITS to protect failing businesses was a total disaster.
And even with ZIRP the Japanese economy is only yet recovering, but mainly on the back of exports to China. If China loses export markets to the USA they cannot afford to pay for Japanese imports. Or energy imports. Or copper imports. Or anything else.
China has been very, very successful at attracting foreign investment and technology. They have also been very, very successful at combining high tech and intensive cheap labor to manufacturing processes instead of one or the other. But in the meantime as they have remained the low cost producer in the world to create jobs in China they have also ruined everyone else's margins. Everyone like their customers that might buy from China.
If you do not see diminishing returns from falling margins, higher import prices, losing customers and higher labor costs in China then I do not think you understand what you are talking about at all? I am not trying to be mean. Just think about it.
China has been an incredible success story. But their rapid growth has been partially financed by the US deficits. Now in order to keep that rapid growth going from a higher base (fast growth from a lower base is easier than fast growth from a higher base) they have to resort to currency manipulation and other tricks to keep creating those jobs. But it is all a giant feedback loop. Costs are rising for the Chinese as well as everyone else.
When the Chinese pay too much for foreign assets they are making the same mistake as the Japanese did in the 1980's. Buying an asset is easy. Funding it is harder. Getting a return on your assets is even more difficult.
Threadbare wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Will China grant foreigner's access to their banking system? Not unless the foreigners promise to reinvest their profits in China. They're not going to allow capital flight back to the US. That just helps to undermine their position in the proxy energy wars.
This is part of their accession to the WTO. You either believe they will play by the trade rules or not, but they are committed to opening their financial markets by that trade treaty. If they do not, then their trade partners can file a complaint.
Does China care? Probably not, but ony open, transparent, profitable banks are interesting and valuable to foreign banks as outside investors. Unprofitable banks that make loans to state companies and insiders that are not going to be repaid are not interesting for foreign banks. Therefore these foreigners will not pay large sums of money to buy them.
China has used some of their foreign exchange reserves to clean-up bad loans at some of its banks that it is privatizing and selling parts of to Citibank, HSBC and others. However, you can only clean-up the balance sheet and hope to sell it if you are reasonably confident that local bank managers will not keep lending to the same unprofitable customers again. Outside of Beijing and the higher echelons of these Chinese banks the concept of risk management and return are very poorly understood and that is why they make bad lending decisions.
Again cleaning up bad loans did not work for Japan either. In the end they needed to merge unprofitable banks, cut lending to bad credit risks, and cull the management in these banks. Otherwise you're just throwing good money after bad. And even with $1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves China's ability to build infrastructure, restructure banks, subsidize industry, and replace $200 billion of exports to the USA per year is limited. Keeping in mind that despite impressive macro-results that China is a deeply flawed and corrupt place under the control of a communist party that puts stability above all else including profit.
So I do not think China's ability to rule the world through economic supremacy is anywhere close at hand, just as Japan's growth was impressive as well, but ran up against the natural limits of diminishing returns. Still, it is likely that their share of world trade will continue to grow because they are a low cost producer, and many of their future unfunded liabilities like environmental damage and clean-up are not factored into their cost of production. And as I believe the US' current account deficit is unstable, unsustainable and cannot continue to grow indefinately then eventually imports into the USA will have to fall. Especially as many of the US' future unfunded liabilities like pensions and healthcare are also not fully factored into today's calculations. But that pain will be shared by all of the US' trading partners. China being one of the largest.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.