|

China Growth – No Miracle

mrclgrowBe careful about investing your hard-earned dollars in the latest Chinese five-year economic miracle.  One should not confuse China’s latest economic growth — retail sales up 14.8 percent, industrial production up 7.3 percent and car production ahead 18 percent — with sustainable growth.

Now that the US consumer is de-leveraging and the global appetite for goods is declining, Chinese exports dropped 22.6 percent in April.

But this raises a question: How can China, a mainly export economy, continue to thrive when its exports are falling?  The answer is that today’s China is a story of two competing economies: the real economy, producing goods and services for mostly external consumption, which is declining at a tremendous rate and the government-spending stimulated economy, which is currently expanding on steroids.

The latter one is clearly winning, for now. Here is why:

  • The Chinese central bank has a significant advantage over ours. The Fed can print a lot of money — and it has — but there’s almost nothing it can do to speed our spending. The Fed cannot force corporations and consumers to spend. Since China isn’t a democracy, it doesn’t suffer the problems of the democracy.
  • China’s communist government owns a large part of the money-creation and money-spending apparatus: Money supply therefore shot up 25.5 percent in March. Since it controls the banks, it forced them to lend.
  • Finally, China can force government-owned corporate entities to borrow and spend. And the government itself can spend quickly — which is important when trying to build infrastructure. If the Chinese government decides to build a highway, it simply draws a straight line on the map. Any obstacle — like a hospital or a school — becomes a casualty of the greater good.

The Chinese government goes to great lengths to stimulate its economy because it doesn’t have the kind of social safety net one sees in the developed world, so it needs to keep its economy going at any cost.
Millions of people have migrated to its cities, and now they’re hungry and unemployed. People without food or work tend to riot; to keep that from happening, the government is more than willing to artificially stimulate the economy, in the hopes of buying time until the global system re-stabilizes.

This type of growth is simply not sustainable, as it comes from borrowing. Its quality is low — hundreds of billion-dollar decisions made on the fly don’t inspire a lot of confidence in their efficiency. It will result in a huge pile of bad debt — forced lending is bad lending. The list of negative consequences is very long, but the bottom line is simple — there is no miracle in Chinese miracle growth, and China will pay a price — the only question is when and how much.

Bookmark and Share

Short URL: http://ContrarianEdge.com/?p=1055

  • Kirk

    On argument A) China won’t be able to sell as much to the US, this is a matter of degree, in so far as the US is still expected to grow in 2010 (exports will be down but probably not -80%, for example) on B) that fiscal spending and monetary stimulus won’t be effective in China, this is generally a question of whether stimulus is effective in a several recession as a general case.

    Our only data points for fiscal spending in severe recessions are the 1930′s, US and Europe and 1990′s Japan. Growth rates were neutral/positive (neutral in the case of Japan and the 1930
    s US, positive in the case of Germany/Soviet Union) with fiscal spending in these countries, most studies assume that the economy would be flat without fiscal spending in these severe recessions so this leads to the conclusion that stimulus isn’t effective, but with a model that shows some realistic decline in gdp fiscal spending is shown to have a positive impact.

Recently Commented

  • Jonathan Deng: One more little data to add to the China bear picture is car sales. According to data provided by GM,...
  • Jonathan Deng: To answer the question the first gentleman asked regarding warning signs, I think the warning sign has...
  • Anonymous: SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IT’S TIME TO CASH IN THE PFIZER STOCK.
  • Anonymous: Facebook and Google are very similar and will likely have a very similar cost structure.  This is why...
  • Leigh Drogen: While I tend to agree with the sentiment that the relative multiples of Facebook and Google are...