What's new

Mapping the World’s Winners and Losers from China Trade

So China's lose is some countries' gain? :D

China's transition, to be more exact :)

There are losers and winners as China moves in value chain.

At this point, I favor China to be on the surplus side when it comes to bilateral trade. But, as a growing (production and) consumption economy, China has the potential to have a huge leverage by simply giving a big trade deficit.

In one way or another, what is key is to create dependencies.
 
. .
We do import more than export to China. It is problem, but input materials imported from China is cheaper than from other countries, and the transportation free is less be course China market is close to us. We don't have another choice,

Any case, we have to find the solution for this matter. Depend on China economically is no good for Vietnam.
And you think the TPP will save you?
 
. . .
Mapping the World’s Winners and Losers from China Trade

In the Past Year, the U.S., Australia, and Brazil Have All Taken a Hit
  • September 24, 2015
The story of China’s trade over the past half-decade or more has stayed relatively consistent: countries exporting commodities to China have seen enormous inflows of money as the country has consumed huge quantities of raw materials, while developed countries in Europe and North America have run persistent and politically contentious deficits as they consume the output of China’s factories. Over the past year and a half, however, this story has changed significantly. Commodity prices have fallen sharply, and China’s economy is slowing from its double digit growth. Many economies around the world are reeling as a result.

China’s trading partners have seen once dependable surpluses wither away, or already existing deficits grow to frustrating levels. This presents a starkly different picture than during the heyday of China’s global growth — where GDP growth rates topped 10 percent per year, versus below seven percent today. The map below shows worldwide monthly average trade deficits and surpluses with China from January 2015 to July 2015. Red indicates a deficit; the deeper the red, the higher the monthly deficit. Click on any country for data:


Source: China General Administration of Customs, calculations by Rhodium Group

As China has entered deeper into a structural adjustment, with lower levels of investment and infrastructure growth, as well as lower energy intensity in economic activity, its trading partners have felt the squeeze. The map below shows the drop or rise in each country’s trade balance with China when comparing the January-July 2015 time period against the same period the previous year. Red indicates a drop; the deeper the red, the sharper the monthly drop. Click on any country for data:


The United States has long had large deficits with China, and those have only gotten larger over the past year. Germany has seen its surplus shrink by more than a third as export of automobiles has fallen. And India, in the midst of advancing a bold economic program to support domestic manufacturing, has seen its deficit increase drastically. In China’s near periphery, Thailand is now running a deficit. Myanmar and Singapore have seen their deficits explode.

Particularly hard hit is Australia, which during the first seven months of 2014 ran a surplus of more than $5.5 billion a month with China, a growing interdependence that caused many to ask how the country would balance the security relation with the United States and a trade relation with China. But over the first seven months of 2015, Australia’s monthly surplus has fallen by an average of more than $2.3 billion versus one year ago, as commodity prices, largely iron ore, have fallen and China’s construction has slowed.

Other countries have seen similar declines. Brazil’s monthly surplus, driven by sales of iron ore and petroleum, has fallen by more than $820 million in 2015, contributing to an economic crisis that has led to the downgrade of the country’s credit rating to junk. Angola and South Africa, which mostly sell oil and minerals like chromium and manganese, have seen even greater declines, of $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively. That adds up quickly; the Angolan economy has seen $9 billion less in the first seven months of the year from China alone. These falling revenues have knock-on effects as well; investors, seeing the declining revenues, defer or cancel fixed asset investment. Africa has been hit hard by these shifts. It’s an open question whether Beijing will continue to find itself feted on the continent if the money stops flowing.

And some countries have shifted from running surpluses to running deficits. Costa Rica had been averaging a surplus of $300 million a month from sales of computer parts; it is now running a deficit of $24 million. Perhaps sensing that its trading partners’ positive feelings towards it were buoyed by these surpluses, China has turned to gifts to maintain positive relations: Beijing recently gave the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Security two aircraft, valued at $18 million. These changes extend into Asia as well. Thailand, which sells oil and rubber to China, buying electronics and machinery in return, has reversed its once-hefty surplus with China, and is now running a deficit as well.

To be sure, there are many ways to evaluate trade relations, especially with the world’s largest exporter. It’s not necessarily counter to a country’s interests to have a trade deficit with China; neither is it necessarily beneficial to have a surplus. But there’s no question that the balance of trade affects each country’s domestic perception of China, as well as China’s bargaining power worldwide.

As China works its way through a growth transition, individual reforms will have complex impacts on a wide range of economic factors, including trade and financial flows. It is hard to predict where these changes might lead. But both bullish and bearish observers should realize that their mental models of China’s economy may have a shorter shelf life than they did a few years ago.

@tranquilium , @Shotgunner51


Sorry for the late reply bro, I was waiting for release of more September trade data, or 3rd quarter, before I can contribute to the thread. The first three quarters combined, trade surplus is $ 426 billion, already exceed full year of 2014 by far. From China's POV, this level of trade surplus is unsustainable in the long run, because it means unsustainable deficit on the other sides. Greater China is already the largest creditor in the world, if such trade pattern persists just Mainland China alone will take that position. In order to help balance trade:
  • In the short run boosting imports, stockpiling primary commodities, is one trivial solution which I gladly see China has begun taking action.
  • In the long run these would help (a) lifting barriers on bi-lateral investment e.g. BIT and strengthen SWF for global investment (b) reform in international reserve currency (c) increase domestic consumption.

In reply to this thread, "winners & losers" on world trade, I'll try to keep it short for once!
  • First look at how the globe functions. As I have mentioned, that's exactly how post-WWII world order works, how existing international trade rule (e.g. WTO) works. At once US was the only industrialized nation left while rest of the planet was bombed to debris, now when many countries are able to export industrial produce, US still issues the world's reserve currency, even another "hard currency" aka crude oil has to subdue to it. For countries sitting on a gold mine, or an oil field, or anything that sells, before those run out life is always good.
  • The world order is simple isn't it? The winners are always the ultimate banker, the profits earning industrial-capitalists, the guys with resources to sell, in that order unfortunately. There are ups and downs, marginal gains or losses, but the framework always stay the same. Don't blame the players, blame the game, try hard to become a banker-industrial-capitalist-resources-rich complex, or at least being some of that, or stay as loser.
 
Last edited:
. .
Mapping the World’s Winners and Losers from China Trade

In the Past Year, the U.S., Australia, and Brazil Have All Taken a Hit
  • September 24, 2015
The story of China’s trade over the past half-decade or more has stayed relatively consistent: countries exporting commodities to China have seen enormous inflows of money as the country has consumed huge quantities of raw materials, while developed countries in Europe and North America have run persistent and politically contentious deficits as they consume the output of China’s factories. Over the past year and a half, however, this story has changed significantly. Commodity prices have fallen sharply, and China’s economy is slowing from its double digit growth. Many economies around the world are reeling as a result.

China’s trading partners have seen once dependable surpluses wither away, or already existing deficits grow to frustrating levels. This presents a starkly different picture than during the heyday of China’s global growth — where GDP growth rates topped 10 percent per year, versus below seven percent today. The map below shows worldwide monthly average trade deficits and surpluses with China from January 2015 to July 2015. Red indicates a deficit; the deeper the red, the higher the monthly deficit. Click on any country for data:


Source: China General Administration of Customs, calculations by Rhodium Group

As China has entered deeper into a structural adjustment, with lower levels of investment and infrastructure growth, as well as lower energy intensity in economic activity, its trading partners have felt the squeeze. The map below shows the drop or rise in each country’s trade balance with China when comparing the January-July 2015 time period against the same period the previous year. Red indicates a drop; the deeper the red, the sharper the monthly drop. Click on any country for data:


The United States has long had large deficits with China, and those have only gotten larger over the past year. Germany has seen its surplus shrink by more than a third as export of automobiles has fallen. And India, in the midst of advancing a bold economic program to support domestic manufacturing, has seen its deficit increase drastically. In China’s near periphery, Thailand is now running a deficit. Myanmar and Singapore have seen their deficits explode.

Particularly hard hit is Australia, which during the first seven months of 2014 ran a surplus of more than $5.5 billion a month with China, a growing interdependence that caused many to ask how the country would balance the security relation with the United States and a trade relation with China. But over the first seven months of 2015, Australia’s monthly surplus has fallen by an average of more than $2.3 billion versus one year ago, as commodity prices, largely iron ore, have fallen and China’s construction has slowed.

Other countries have seen similar declines. Brazil’s monthly surplus, driven by sales of iron ore and petroleum, has fallen by more than $820 million in 2015, contributing to an economic crisis that has led to the downgrade of the country’s credit rating to junk. Angola and South Africa, which mostly sell oil and minerals like chromium and manganese, have seen even greater declines, of $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively. That adds up quickly; the Angolan economy has seen $9 billion less in the first seven months of the year from China alone. These falling revenues have knock-on effects as well; investors, seeing the declining revenues, defer or cancel fixed asset investment. Africa has been hit hard by these shifts. It’s an open question whether Beijing will continue to find itself feted on the continent if the money stops flowing.

And some countries have shifted from running surpluses to running deficits. Costa Rica had been averaging a surplus of $300 million a month from sales of computer parts; it is now running a deficit of $24 million. Perhaps sensing that its trading partners’ positive feelings towards it were buoyed by these surpluses, China has turned to gifts to maintain positive relations: Beijing recently gave the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Security two aircraft, valued at $18 million. These changes extend into Asia as well. Thailand, which sells oil and rubber to China, buying electronics and machinery in return, has reversed its once-hefty surplus with China, and is now running a deficit as well.

To be sure, there are many ways to evaluate trade relations, especially with the world’s largest exporter. It’s not necessarily counter to a country’s interests to have a trade deficit with China; neither is it necessarily beneficial to have a surplus. But there’s no question that the balance of trade affects each country’s domestic perception of China, as well as China’s bargaining power worldwide.

As China works its way through a growth transition, individual reforms will have complex impacts on a wide range of economic factors, including trade and financial flows. It is hard to predict where these changes might lead. But both bullish and bearish observers should realize that their mental models of China’s economy may have a shorter shelf life than they did a few years ago.

@tranquilium , @Shotgunner51
Sorry for the late reply bro, I was waiting for release of more September trade data, or 3rd quarter, before I can contribute to the thread. The first three quarters combined, trade surplus is $ 426 billion, already exceed full year of 2014 by far. From China's POV, this level of trade surplus is unsustainable in the long run, because it means unsustainable deficit on the other sides. Greater China is already the largest creditor in the world, if such trade pattern persists just Mainland China alone will take that position. In order to help balance trade:
  • In the short run boosting imports, stockpiling primary commodities, is one trivial solution which I gladly see China has begun taking action.
  • In the long run these would help (a) lifting barriers on bi-lateral investment e.g. BIT and strengthen SWF for global investment (b) reform in international reserve currency (c) increase domestic consumption.

In reply to this thread, "winners & losers" on world trade, I'll try to keep it short for once!
  • First look at how the globe functions. As I have mentioned, that's exactly how post-WWII world order works, how existing international trade rule (e.g. WTO) works. At once US was the only industrialized nation left while rest of the planet was bombed to debris, now when many countries are able to export industrial produce, US still issues the world's reserve currency, even another "hard currency" aka crude oil has to subdue to it. For countries sitting on a gold mine, or an oil field, or anything that sells, before those run out life is always good.
  • The world order is simple isn't it? The winners are always the ultimate banker, the profits earning industrial-capitalists, the guys with resources to sell, in that order unfortunately. There are ups and downs, marginal gains or losses, but the framework always stay the same. Don't blame the players, blame the game, try hard to become a banker-industrial-capitalist-resources-rich complex, or at least being some of that, or stay as loser.
I think the most important thing for a so big country like China is how to become a rule maker on international trade and economy.So we can make rules which benefit ourselves like American have done so far.
 
.
I think the most important thing for a so big country like China is how to become a rule maker on international trade and economy.So we can make rules which benefit ourselves like American have done so far.

Exactly. Hence we have alternative models such as AIIB and New Development Bank.

These are not necessarily system-over throwers, but they are still challenging as they offer a systemic alternative.
 
.
Exactly. Hence we have alternative models such as AIIB and New Development Bank.

These are not necessarily system-over throwers, but they are still challenging as they offer a systemic alternative.

Very well said, China needs to do something serious about the situation! In the short run, stockpiling strategic commodities at home, global investment in strategic assets. In the long run, improve international rules on trade, settlement, banking and reserve.

I think the most important thing for a so big country like China is how to become a rule maker on international trade and economy.So we can make rules which benefit ourselves like American have done so far.

Exactly that's what we should do!

The trade picture looks cruel right? Well that's reality! The title might as well be "Mapping Winners & Losers In Food Chain". Here the winning countries are:
(1) The banker, at the top of this food chain they are the rule maker, very "evil" LOL
(2) The industrial-capitalists, the more value they add in their activities, the better is their profits
(3) The resources seller, well they are also the fortunate guys, siting on a pot of gold is never a bad thing

So try hard to become (1)+(2)+(3) that will be excellent! If impossible then at least be good in one of these. Or just be a loser like always, sad but true.
 
.
China needs to do something serious about the situation! In the short run, stockpiling strategic commodities at home, global investment in strategic assets. In the long run, improve international rules on trade, settlement, banking and reserve.

Exactly, bro!

And, perhaps, when you find out that the established system is reactionary or simply unresponsive, then, stop whining or sulking, or challenging the big bosses up front, go about building up your own models and make them look attractive for the rest of the world.

Give the world alternatives to choose from. Then the system's bosses won't have any legitimate or logical ground to accuse you of being a revisionist.

I do not accept the thesis that China is a revisionist country. That's the work of the weak-minded.

China is an order-builder.
 
.
Exactly, bro!

And, perhaps, when you find out that the established system is reactionary or simply unresponsive, then, stop whining or sulking, or challenging the big bosses up front, go about building up your own models and make them look attractive for the rest of the world.

Give the world alternatives to choose from. Then the system's bosses won't have any legitimate or logical ground to accuse you of being a revisionist.

I do not accept the thesis that China is a revisionist country. That's the work of the weak-minded.

China is an order-builder.

Very well said! See the power of rule-maker at top of the food chain:

Fitch Downgrades Brazil To BBB- With Negative Outlook | Seeking Alpha
Brazil’s Political Uncertainty Risks Another Downgrade, Fitch Says - WSJ
Fitch Cuts Brazil Rating, Says Investment Grade at Risk
Fitch Downgrades Brazil Loan Trust I Notes to 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Remains Negative - Yahoo Finance
 
.
.
Is there really anything wrong with Brazil? I'm not familiar with Latin America economies.

Well whatever it is, this Fitch rating cut to BBB Minus won't do them any good ...

But hey they got the upcoming Rio Olympics, hope it serves as a catalyst for their economy. Oh btw you know this Olympics is almost another "Made in China"? Business at least should be OK for us ...

 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom