What's new

All the signs coming from the economic data show that China in big trouble

I don't understand why the article is so alarmist. This "Lewis point" has been projected for years in the case if China and I'm still not sure china is there yet. But the fact is China is so rich with so much reserves that it is not just going to flop overnight.


Yes consumption needs to dramatically pick up but this is not an impossible challenge- give the people freedoms and they'll do just that- consume and consume.



The one thing I'd be truly worried about if I was the Chinese govt would be the long-term effects of their "one child policy", this is going to have dramatic and unknown economic and social consequences. Yes, there is talk of relaxing this policy now but it could very well be too little, too late. When you have a demographic transition model that looks like a developed nation such as Japan of Germany but only through artificial tempering but you still have average wages of a developing nation- things could get very bad, very quickly.


As always, we can only wait and see.



This has no business being in the Indian defence section.
 
.
By Paul Krugman

All economic data are best viewed as a peculiarly boring genre of science fiction, but Chinese data are even more fictional than most. Add a secretive government, a controlled press and the sheer size of the country, and it's harder to figure out what's really happening in China than it is in any other major economy.

Yet the signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We're not talking about some minor setback along the way, but something more fundamental. The country's whole way of doing business, the economic system that has driven three decades of incredible growth, has reached its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be.

Start with the data, unreliable as they may be. What immediately jumps out at you when you compare China with almost any other economy, aside from its rapid growth, is the lopsided balance between consumption and investment. All successful economies devote part of their current income to investment rather than consumption, so as to expand their future ability to consume. China, however, seems to invest only to expand its future ability to invest even more. America, admittedly on the high side, devotes 70 percent of its gross domestic product to consumption; for China, the number is only half that high, while almost half of GDP is invested.

How is that even possible? What keeps consumption so low, and how have the Chinese been able to invest so much without (until now) running into sharply diminishing returns? The answers are the subject of intense controversy. The story that makes the most sense to me, however, rests on an old insight by the economist W. Arthur Lewis, who argued that countries in the early stages of economic development typically have a small modern sector alongside a large traditional sector containing huge amounts of "surplus labor" - underemployed peasants making at best a marginal contribution to overall economic output.

The existence of this surplus labor, in turn, has two effects. First, for a while such countries can invest heavily in new factories, construction and so on without running into diminishing returns, because they can keep drawing in new labor from the countryside. Second, competition from this reserve army of surplus labor keeps wages low even as the economy grows richer. Indeed, the main thing holding

down Chinese consumption seems to be that Chinese families never see much of the income being generated by the country's economic growth. Some of that income flows to a politically connected elite; but much of it simply stays bottled up in businesses, many of them state-owned enterprises.

It's all very peculiar by our standards, but it worked for several decades. Now, however, China has hit the "Lewis point" - to put it crudely, it's running out of surplus peasants.

That should be a good thing. Wages are rising; finally, ordinary Chinese are starting to share in the fruits of growth. But it also means that the Chinese economy is suddenly faced with the need for drastic "rebalancing" - the jargon phrase of the moment. Investment is now running into sharply diminishing returns and is going to drop drastically no matter what the government does; consumer spending must rise dramatically to take its place. The question is whether this can happen fast enough to avoid a nasty slump.

And the answer, increasingly, seems to be no. The need for rebalancing has been obvious for years, but China just kept putting off the necessary changes, instead boosting the economy by keeping the currency undervalued and flooding it with cheap credit. (Since someone is going to raise this issue: No, this bears very little resemblance to the Federal Reserve's policies here.) These measures postponed the day of reckoning but also ensured that this day would be even harder when it finally came. And now it has arrived.

How big a deal is this for the rest of us? At market values - which is what matters for the global outlook - China's economy is still only modestly bigger than Japan's; it's around half the size of either the US or the European Union. So it's big but not huge, and, in ordinary times, the world could probably take China's troubles in stride.

Unfortunately, these aren't ordinary times: China is hitting its Lewis point at the same time that Western economies are going through their "Minsky moment," the point when overextended private borrowers all try to pull back at the same time, and in so doing provoke a general slump. China's new woes are the last thing the rest of us needed.

No doubt many readers are feeling some intellectual whiplash. Just the other day we were afraid of the Chinese. Now we're afraid for them. But our situation has not improved.


All the signs coming from the economic data show that China is in big trouble - The Economic Times


Thought i would make it easier to read
 
.
Paul Krugman is widely recognised a crook.

The fact that Krugman somehow gets Nobel Economics has singlehandedly and almost completely destroyed whatever residual reputation that has left in that prize. It's similar to what Obama getting Nobel Peace.

Paul Krugman has been caught red-handedly lying in his NYT column... not once, quite often actually.

Paul Krugman has been proven wrong, repeatedly wrong, almost always wrong, on a continutous basis for YEARS on almost all major economics and social issues he takes stand on.

It takes quite a beating actually. The only people that could compare to Krugman apple to apple are the charlatans for Indian crappy TV shows or sth like Rupee News.
 
.
If its under the carpet and smelling .. usually it isn't good when the carpet is removed.

Rather than looking stupid, PRC should stop issuing its "claims" of "GDP growth".

The world is bored and more like yawning at those "claims" now.




That said, this thread shouldn't be in Indian Defence section .. unless someone thinks that china is a part of India.
 
. . . .
China needs to slow down itself as when you aim so high, you tend to miss, but this also shows paranoia of the world that sees China as a super power.

China+-+Uncle+Sam+-+Can+you+tell+me+about+my+future.jpg
 
.
No Obama is not a Nobel prize winner for economics.

I mean:He win a peace price, but infact he doesn't have peace manner, nature nobel prizes have some meaning, Social sciences nobel prizes are meaning less
 
.
China's economic slowdown takes toll on US
companies
NEW YORK: It's official. China's slowdown is starting to
hurt corporate America.
As the world's second-largest economy - and still
growing - China is seen as a primary source of revenue
growth by the largest U.S. companies. But a country
that once boasted double-digit growth is now growing
at a more modest 7.5 percent rate, its credit markets
are overheated and fears of a housing bubble remain.
The slowing has occurred as major U.S. names garner
more revenue from Asia. Among 18 S&P companies
with large exposure to China, 12 of them were
underperforming the broader S&P 500 index year-to-
date, including Yum Brands Inc and Intel, which noted
the slower growth in China as a headwind.
"The China impact is becoming more and more
significant because the (U.S.) companies' exposure has
grown so much over the years," said Robbert van
Batenburg, director of market strategy at Newedge in
New York.
Those concerns have caused investors to reduce their
global emerging-markets equity exposure to its lowest
in 12 years, according to a Merrill Lynch survey.
Industrials, luxury goods makers and companies in the
commodities and consumer businesses have built up
huge exposure to China.
On Wednesday, hedge fund guru Jim Chanos said he
was shorting Caterpillar, sending shares down nearly 2
percent. Chanos has long argued that China's economy
is headed for a crash, saying the company is "tied to
the wrong products at the wrong part of the cycle."
About 25 percent of Caterpillar's revenue comes from
the Asia/Pacific region, though it does not break out
revenues by country.
GLOOMY OUTLOOK
A Merrill Lynch fund manager survey from June pegs
China's problems as the most worrisome factor.
The survey said the prospect of a hard landing in
China stands out as a major tail risk identified by fund
managers, with 56 percent ranking it first on this
measure, compared with just one-third of respondents
giving it that ranking a month ago.
"China has gone from a very difficult transition as they
try to spur internal consumption. That has produced
inflation and a big credit crunch," said Omar Aguilar,
chief investment officer for equities at Charles Schwab
Corp in San Francisco.
"I think a lot of people underestimated the effect of
China and Brazil. (Going forward) they will probably be
very conservative on their estimates. They're going to
scale down," Aguilar said.
Yum Brands, the operator of the KFC and Taco Bell
chains, reported a 15 percent drop in quarterly
earnings last week as KFC sales in China, a crucial
market for Yum, have been falling since December.
Nearly 51 percent of Yum's revenue is from China, up
from just 34 percent two years ago.
Intel, which has about 16 percent of its revenue from
China, also cut its full-year revenue forecast and said
it is scaling back capital spending as it adjusts to a
painful contraction of personal computer sales and
economic weakness in China.
Chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices derives 58 percent
of its revenue from China, up from 45 percent in 2010.
The company's quarterly loss was 9 cents a share,
ahead of the forecast for a 12-cent loss. It did not
mention China in its press release.
Analysts content that without the People's Bank of
China injecting liquidity into its financial system,
growth will keep declining. Societe Generale now
projects GDP growth in the world's second-largest
economy at as low as four to five percent by the end of
this decade.
TARGET THE MIDDLE CLASS
Some analysts say companies can withstand China's
slowdown by shifting their focus to programs funded
by the central government, which are designed to lift
the middle class segment of the population to 45
percent or more later this decade from about 40 to 41
percent currently.
If the companies target the middle class, they can
enjoy steady growth in their sales in China, but if they
continue to focus on export-oriented projects funded
by cash-strapped local governments, they will be
disappointed, according to Nicholas Heymann, analyst
at William Blair & Co in New York.
He noted that United Technologies' Otis elevator unit
has been successfully growing in China as demand for
elevators outpaces supply in the country.
Beverage companies also are counting on a growing
middle class to boost sales. Coca Cola CEO Muhtar
Kent said earlier this week that China is a great
consumer market with a very robust new middle class.
"We're very bullish on the long-term prospects in
China," Kent told reporters.
Still, the slowdown in China comes at an especially bad
time for U.S. industrials, given persistent weakness in
the Eurozone and the lackluster recovery in the U.S.
"China affects all of the industrials, some more than
others. Machinery names tend to be more economically
sensitive, more volatile, more leveraged," said Brian
Langenberg, founder of research firm Langenberg & Co
in Chicago.
"Caterpillar would say inventories are coming back into
line. But your outlook on a stock depends on what
implicit growth rate you are expecting from China," he
said.
Caterpillar's revised outlook for 2013, which it may
update next week when it reports earnings, reflects an
expected 50 percent decline in sales of its traditional
mining trucks and loaders as well as a 15 percent
decline in sales of draglines made by Bucyrus, the
Milwaukee-based company it bought in 2010.
"Some of the companies that have been hit, a lot of it
was in infrastructure, the Caterpillars of the world, Joy
Global and some others. Is there likely to be some
spillover? There could be. This probably will be the
quarter where it will rear its head," said Perry Adams,
vice president at Northwestern Bank in Traverse City,
Michigan. source m.economictimes.com/news/international-business/chinas-economic-slowdown-takes-toll-on-us-companies/articleshow/21165957.cms
 
.
Paul Krugman is widely recognised a crook.

The fact that Krugman somehow gets Nobel Economics has singlehandedly and almost completely destroyed whatever residual reputation that has left in that prize. It's similar to what Obama getting Nobel Peace.

Paul Krugman has been caught red-handedly lying in his NYT column... not once, quite often actually.

Paul Krugman has been proven wrong, repeatedly wrong, almost always wrong, on a continutous basis for YEARS on almost all major economics and social issues he takes stand on.

It takes quite a beating actually. The only people that could compare to Krugman apple to apple are the charlatans for Indian crappy TV shows or sth like Rupee News.


An economist will explain to you why what he said yesterday did not happen.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom