What's new

Exposing a Hoax: 'Severe slowdown in China' and 'strong recovery in the U.S.'

TaiShang

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
27,848
Reaction score
70
Country
China
Location
Taiwan, Province Of China
China can maintain its economic growth
By John Ross

Earlier this year sections of the Western media tried to spin a story that the world economy was experiencing 'severe slowdown in China' and 'strong recovery in the U.S.' – China's economy was allegedly in trouble and the U.S.'s doing well.



Workers run a wheel production facility in Qinhuangdao-based CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd., north China's Hebei Province. [Xinhua photo]


Now that the actual data is in for the first half of the year, it shows that the opposite was true. China's economic growth rate was 7.5% in the year to the second quarter of 2014, and the U.S.'s economic growth rate was 2.4% - China's economy grew more than three times as fast as that of the U.S.

Still more significantly for the U.S., its own statistical agencies and the IMF have officially revised their projections for long term US growth down – both organizations now estimate it at only 2%. The Economist, somewhat cruelly, put a cartoon of the US as a tortoise on its front cover, stating bluntly that U.S. 'long term growth has slowed.'

My calculations for the U.S. economy are marginally more optimistic. Over the last 20 years, U.S. average annual growth was 2.4%, and there is no short term reason why it should slow. But this is just a minor detail, since either estimate means the US will remain on a path of 2-3% annual growth.

What are the comparative prospects for China's economy – not over the next few months, but over the longer term, say to 2020? Answering this requires going beyond immediate news events and short term fluctuations, to the fundamental factors determining China's economic development.

Right at the beginning, it should be clarified that the medium/long term aim of China's policy is not to maximize GDP growth. This is explicit; indeed, it has become commonplace in China recently to say that what matters is not the quantity of growth, but its quality.

But unless it is specified what the criteria for 'quality' are and how 'quality' is to be measured, this becomes an empty, clichéd phrase, of the type China's President Xi Jinping stressed must be avoided. The only correct measure of 'quality' can be the overall well-being and national security of China's population, summarized by China's goal of 'comprehensive national renewal.'

This correctly contextualizes economic growth. Economic growth is not an end in itself, but is an absolutely indispensable means to achieve the desired ends. International comparisons show more than 80% of consumption growth, and over 70% of life expectancy extension – the latter reflecting factors such as health care and environmental quality – is the result of economic growth.


For those at the bottom of the income ladder, economic growth is particularly crucial. The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative recently studied every country in the world's correlation between GDP per person and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), which considers ten indicators including nutrition, child mortality, and years of schooling. An extraordinarily close correlation was found – as The Economist magazine noted: 'Economic growth may thus not only be the best way to overcome extreme poverty, but also to reduce terrible non-economic social ailments as well.'

Since the attainment of a high standard of living – which requires high consumption, good environment, quality health care, and poverty elimination – is certainly at the top of the priority list if China is to maintain rapid overall progress, sustained high economic growth is indispensable. Fortunately, examination of economic fundamentals shows that, provided no major policy mistakes are made, China will continue to outperform all other major economies for a prolonged period.

Any economy's growth is necessarily determined by two simple ratios. The first is the percentage of the economy that is invested. Modern economic research shows that 57% of growth in an advanced economy is due to capital investment, 32% to increases in labour, and only 11% due to productivity increases (technically known as Total Factor Productivity – TFP).

Developing economies, such as China, at present have the advantage that they can apply technologies from more advanced economies without having to pay the research costs of developing them – a benefit known as 'catch-up.' In developing Asian economies, for example, 22% of growth is due to productivity increases compared to only 11% in developed economies, as the chart below shows.





But the advantage of being able to borrow technology without paying development costs disappears as an economy becomes more advanced. Therefore, the role played by productivity growth falls as an economy moves to higher income levels, while the role played by capital investment increases, as is also shown in the chart above. The percentage of growth accounted for by productivity declines from 19-22% in developing economies to 11% in advanced ones.

By 2020 China will be on the verge of becoming a 'high income' economy according to World Bank criteria. As China is no longer exempt from the economic growth rules that apply to any other country, its growth strategy must therefore assume that as it becomes more developed, its growth will become more and more dependent on capital investment and less dependent on productivity increases.

China's advantage in meeting this challenge is that its investment level, 47% of GDP, is the highest of any major economy, providing a solid basis for long term growth. Maintaining such a high level of investment is the first essential for China's rapid growth, while reduction in investment would affect growth negatively.

The second key ratio determining economic growth is 'how much bang you get for a buck' from investment. Technically this is known as ICOR (incremental capital output ratio): what percentage of GDP has to be invested to generate 1% GDP growth.

So far China's situation is also satisfactory in this respect. Taking the average for the latest three years for which there is data in order to avoid distortions caused by short term fluctuations, China invested 5.1% of GDP for each 1% rise in economic growth, whereas the U.S. had to invest 7.9% – China's investment was therefore about 50% more efficient that the U.S's investment. But China's investment efficiency has fallen – the gap used to be bigger.

A key reason is the slowdown in China's industrial growth. Productivity increases in services are much slower than in industry in all countries. But in the last three years China's industrial growth has significantly decelerated to around 9% a year, as shown in the following chart.

001ec949c22b15554b5b10.jpg

It is too early in China's development for it to shift from a manufacturing to a service-based economy. By comparison, South Korea is still an economy dominated by manufacturing, but China's per capita GDP is only one quarter to one third of South Korea's, depending on the measure used. A premature shift from industry to services would therefore lead to a significant decline in China's economic efficiency.

So far the problem is not serious – 9% industrial growth is sufficient to achieve China's 7.5% GDP growth target. But any further industrial deceleration would be damaging, as productivity growth in services cannot substitute for productivity growth in the manufacturing industry.

Maintaining the competitiveness of China's industry will therefore be the key to maintaining China's overall economic efficiency and growth in the coming years.


The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/johnross.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
 
.
Economic growth is of peripheral importance. Fairness of wealth distribution is more important. That is why the corruption crackdown is the most significant event in Chinese history since Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening up. Maybe the most significant since the 1949 establishment of PRC.
 
.
Only morons would believe in and follow what western economists suggest,especially in china.
 
.
Economic growth is of peripheral importance. Fairness of wealth distribution is more important. That is why the corruption crackdown is the most significant event in Chinese history since Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening up. Maybe the most significant since the 1949 establishment of PRC.

It depends on the specific condition of the nation. In a lot of cases, no matter how fair you are, if your total wealth is low, then it just means everyone is equally poor. Of course, fairness of wealth distribution is by no means unimportant. At certain stage of a nation's development, if the rate of increase of wealth is slowing or comes at too great a cost, then improving the fairness of wealth distribution may yield better result for the same effort.

Though, keep in mind, a lot of vital industries of the nation, such as military or cutting edge research often depends more on the total wealth.
 
. .
China economic data shows further signs of softening
CCTV.com

Data out just a few hours ago show it may be too early to celebrate China containing the economic slowdown. Factory output rose 9 percent on a yearly base, just as expected, but slightly lower compared with June.

Meanwhile, retail sales rose a weaker than expected 12.2 percent, slowing from June’s 12.4 percent pace. Fixed-asset investment also missed forecasts, gaining 17 percent in the first seven months from last year, continuing the downward trend which has lasted for nearly six years.

In the meantime, the cooling property market shows further signs of deterioration with property investment rising 13.7 percent in the first seven months of 2014, about half a percentage point lower compared with a month ago.

And revenues from property sales dropped 8.2 percent, sharper than the fall in the year to June. Some economists believe further stimulus may be needed to sustain the recovery and offset the drag from the property market.
 
.
China can maintain its economic growth
By John Ross

Earlier this year sections of the Western media tried to spin a story that the world economy was experiencing 'severe slowdown in China' and 'strong recovery in the U.S.' – China's economy was allegedly in trouble and the U.S.'s doing well.

Workers run a wheel production facility in Qinhuangdao-based CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd., north China's Hebei Province. [Xinhua photo]


Now that the actual data is in for the first half of the year, it shows that the opposite was true. China's economic growth rate was 7.5% in the year to the second quarter of 2014, and the U.S.'s economic growth rate was 2.4% - China's economy grew more than three times as fast as that of the U.S.

Still more significantly for the U.S., its own statistical agencies and the IMF have officially revised their projections for long term US growth down – both organizations now estimate it at only 2%. The Economist, somewhat cruelly, put a cartoon of the US as a tortoise on its front cover, stating bluntly that U.S. 'long term growth has slowed.'

My calculations for the U.S. economy are marginally more optimistic. Over the last 20 years, U.S. average annual growth was 2.4%, and there is no short term reason why it should slow. But this is just a minor detail, since either estimate means the US will remain on a path of 2-3% annual growth.

What are the comparative prospects for China's economy – not over the next few months, but over the longer term, say to 2020? Answering this requires going beyond immediate news events and short term fluctuations, to the fundamental factors determining China's economic development.

Right at the beginning, it should be clarified that the medium/long term aim of China's policy is not to maximize GDP growth. This is explicit; indeed, it has become commonplace in China recently to say that what matters is not the quantity of growth, but its quality.

But unless it is specified what the criteria for 'quality' are and how 'quality' is to be measured, this becomes an empty, clichéd phrase, of the type China's President Xi Jinping stressed must be avoided. The only correct measure of 'quality' can be the overall well-being and national security of China's population, summarized by China's goal of 'comprehensive national renewal.'

This correctly contextualizes economic growth. Economic growth is not an end in itself, but is an absolutely indispensable means to achieve the desired ends. International comparisons show more than 80% of consumption growth, and over 70% of life expectancy extension – the latter reflecting factors such as health care and environmental quality – is the result of economic growth.


For those at the bottom of the income ladder, economic growth is particularly crucial. The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative recently studied every country in the world's correlation between GDP per person and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), which considers ten indicators including nutrition, child mortality, and years of schooling. An extraordinarily close correlation was found – as The Economist magazine noted: 'Economic growth may thus not only be the best way to overcome extreme poverty, but also to reduce terrible non-economic social ailments as well.'

Since the attainment of a high standard of living – which requires high consumption, good environment, quality health care, and poverty elimination – is certainly at the top of the priority list if China is to maintain rapid overall progress, sustained high economic growth is indispensable. Fortunately, examination of economic fundamentals shows that, provided no major policy mistakes are made, China will continue to outperform all other major economies for a prolonged period.

Any economy's growth is necessarily determined by two simple ratios. The first is the percentage of the economy that is invested. Modern economic research shows that 57% of growth in an advanced economy is due to capital investment, 32% to increases in labour, and only 11% due to productivity increases (technically known as Total Factor Productivity – TFP).

Developing economies, such as China, at present have the advantage that they can apply technologies from more advanced economies without having to pay the research costs of developing them – a benefit known as 'catch-up.' In developing Asian economies, for example, 22% of growth is due to productivity increases compared to only 11% in developed economies, as the chart below shows.


But the advantage of being able to borrow technology without paying development costs disappears as an economy becomes more advanced. Therefore, the role played by productivity growth falls as an economy moves to higher income levels, while the role played by capital investment increases, as is also shown in the chart above. The percentage of growth accounted for by productivity declines from 19-22% in developing economies to 11% in advanced ones.

By 2020 China will be on the verge of becoming a 'high income' economy according to World Bank criteria. As China is no longer exempt from the economic growth rules that apply to any other country, its growth strategy must therefore assume that as it becomes more developed, its growth will become more and more dependent on capital investment and less dependent on productivity increases.

China's advantage in meeting this challenge is that its investment level, 47% of GDP, is the highest of any major economy, providing a solid basis for long term growth. Maintaining such a high level of investment is the first essential for China's rapid growth, while reduction in investment would affect growth negatively.

The second key ratio determining economic growth is 'how much bang you get for a buck' from investment. Technically this is known as ICOR (incremental capital output ratio): what percentage of GDP has to be invested to generate 1% GDP growth.

So far China's situation is also satisfactory in this respect. Taking the average for the latest three years for which there is data in order to avoid distortions caused by short term fluctuations, China invested 5.1% of GDP for each 1% rise in economic growth, whereas the U.S. had to invest 7.9% – China's investment was therefore about 50% more efficient that the U.S's investment. But China's investment efficiency has fallen – the gap used to be bigger.

A key reason is the slowdown in China's industrial growth. Productivity increases in services are much slower than in industry in all countries. But in the last three years China's industrial growth has significantly decelerated to around 9% a year, as shown in the following chart.

001ec949c22b15554b5b10.jpg
It is too early in China's development for it to shift from a manufacturing to a service-based economy. By comparison, South Korea is still an economy dominated by manufacturing, but China's per capita GDP is only one quarter to one third of South Korea's, depending on the measure used. A premature shift from industry to services would therefore lead to a significant decline in China's economic efficiency.

So far the problem is not serious – 9% industrial growth is sufficient to achieve China's 7.5% GDP growth target. But any further industrial deceleration would be damaging, as productivity growth in services cannot substitute for productivity growth in the manufacturing industry.

Maintaining the competitiveness of China's industry will therefore be the key to maintaining China's overall economic efficiency and growth in the coming years.


The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/johnross.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.

With all due respect, there is enough room for discussion without the author having to descend to mendacity by fabricating stories like "Western media tried to spin a story that the world economy was experiencing 'severe slowdown in China' and 'strong recovery in the U.S.' " No mainstream financial paper in the West made such accusations, and it cheapens the debate to rely on that kind of straw man.

As for the rest of the article, the author managed to overlook the major issue that we, and the press, have been discussing for some time now--namely, why does China need to rebalance. The author states that China should not rebalance, since it needs to keep industrial production growth rates high. The author seems to think that China has a choice in this regard, which is staggering. China needs to rebalance because China must rebalance--in order to continue growing its manufacturing sector, it must find a customer for the manufacturing sectors output, i.e. its own domestic consumption, aka rebalancing.

Here's a more sophisticated take on the matter (please excuse my use of the Brookings Institution, not my favorite think tank):

China's Rebalancing in Light of Earlier Asian Experiences | Brookings Institution

David Dollar | October 2, 2013 10:00am

China's Rebalancing in Light of Earlier Asian Experiences

I just returned from a week in China where the conversation continues to revolve around whether the economy needs to rebalance away from excessive reliance on investment, towards household consumption, and, if so, what reforms would enable this transformation while maintaining a healthy growth rate. While in Beijing, I had a couple of opportunities to present
a new paper that looks at China’s rebalancing challenge in light of the earlier experiences of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. According to the recently released Penn World Tables version 8, China’s PPP GDP per capita is 2011 was about the same as Japan’s in 1970, Taiwan’s in 1982, and South Korea’s in 1987. All of those economies continued to grow well for at least a decade after reaching China’s current stage of development so it may be instructive to look at their experiences.

china_capital_output.jpg


Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan had a number of striking similarities. They all had strong catch-up with the technology level (or total factor productivity) of the USA, sustained until they reached high income. This was key to maintaining high productivity of capital, even though they were accumulating capital rapidly. The curve in the figure above shows the average experience of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in terms of the capital-output ratio, as their per capita GDPs rose. The capital-output ratio indicates how much capital is needed to produce a given level of output; it tends to rise with development. The East Asian industrializers were able to maintain low capital-output ratios (that is, high productivity of capital) for a long time because their technological advance was so strong. That high return to capital in turn encouraged high investment rates, peaking around 35% of GDP. During the period of high investment the three typically had trade deficits so that they were borrowing from abroad to fuel their investment. Eventually, the catch-up process naturally comes to an end, and it can be seen in the figure that as they reached high income the productivity of capital in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan then fell. Investment rates responded by falling about 10 percentage points, and these economies shifted from trade deficits to trade surpluses. In that sense they all rebalanced away from investment towards external demand.

China’s experience follows the others fairly well for about 20 years after the beginning of reform and opening up. In the past 15 years, however, China’s model has diverged from the earlier industrializers. In particular, China’s capital-output ratio started rising sharply at an earlier stage of development. Simply put, China has been growing at rates similar to the earlier industrializers, but it has taken much more capital to achieve this. Its investment rate in recent years has been around half of GDP; at that rate the capital stock doubles in six years. Using more capital to grow at about the same rate means that Total Factor Productivity growth is lower than in the earlier experiences. Macro and micro evidence both point to falling productivity of capital in China so that it would take higher and higher investment to maintain growth rates with the old model. Another feature of the Chinese model is that it developed trade surpluses at an earlier stage of development. If both investment and net exports are significantly higher than in the earlier experiences then something else has to be significantly lower: and that something else is household consumption. In China’s national accounts household consumption was 36% of GDP in 2011, more than 15 percentage points below the consumption levels seen in the other economies at this stage of development.

My conclusion from this comparison is that, in order to sustain growth and continue to develop, China faces inter-related challenges on the supply and demand sides. On the supply side, the economy needs to generate more productivity growth and reduce wasteful investment; on the demand side, as investment comes down, the logical place to find new demand is consumption. China still has a large trade surplus in a world where its main trading partners are growing slowly. So a growing external surplus is not likely to be a main source of demand for China. In terms of the policy agenda, there are institutional features that bias the system towards investment and away from household income and consumption: the hukou system limiting rural-urban migration; the closed service sectors of the economy in which state-owned firms earn rents and reinvest them; the repressed financial system which acts as a tax on households and a subsidy to investment; and the reward system for local government which prioritizes investment and growth (and provides rent-seeking opportunities in the large-scale investment projects). Reforms in all of these areas will be discussed in and around the Third Plenum later this year, and it will be fascinating to see what the new government’s reform plans are.
 
. .
My conclusion from this comparison is that, in order to sustain growth and continue to develop, China faces inter-related challenges on the supply and demand sides. On the supply side, the economy needs to generate more productivity growth and reduce wasteful investment; on the demand side, as investment comes down, the logical place to find new demand is consumption. China still has a large trade surplus in a world where its main trading partners are growing slowly. So a growing external surplus is not likely to be a main source of demand for China. In terms of the policy agenda, there are institutional features that bias the system towards investment and away from household income and consumption: the hukou system limiting rural-urban migration; the closed service sectors of the economy in which state-owned firms earn rents and reinvest them; the repressed financial system which acts as a tax on households and a subsidy to investment; and the reward system for local government which prioritizes investment and growth (and provides rent-seeking opportunities in the large-scale investment projects). Reforms in all of these areas will be discussed in and around the Third Plenum later this year, and it will be fascinating to see what the new government’s reform plans are.

Excellent analysis. Well written.
 
.
The entire US economy is on the verge of total collapse as all its bubbles and debt come home to roost.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom