Chinese Economics Thread

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
This would be a global game changer if it happens.

Japan gets a feel for Asian integration
By Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - If you believe Japan will always be an unswerving "lap dog" of the United States, then 2009 may bring a rude awakening. This year could be the beginning of Tokyo's swift shift in its axis of cooperation toward other Asian nations. Early signs are already beginning to show.

More than 130 years ago, the great Japanese philosopher Yukichi Fukuzawa - whose portrait adorns 10,000 yen bills - put forward the idea of disassociating Japan from dormant Asia and integrating with the West to protect its independence. The notion of "Leave Asia and enter the West" proposed by the samurai-turned-scholar became the spiritual and intellectual foundation of modern Japan.

Japan then stood in Fukuzawa's symbolic shadow for more than a



century - discriminating against and underestimating the rest of Asia. First, the Japanese Imperial Army invaded large swaths of the region. Then, in the post-World War II period, right-leaning Japanese politicians, especially in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), often humiliated formerly occupied countries by alternately denying and justifying its wartime atrocities.

Now, with Japan plunging into trade deficits and facing startling rises in unemployment and suicides, the West-leaning philosophy is proving detrimental. This is especially true of the single-track Japan-US alliance. Tokyo needs to diversify diplomatic and economic relations - and soon.

Japan's population of more than 120 million is at a critical stage. The nation's recession is deepening and economic growth is expected to slow further. Long-term demographic trends indicate a rapidly aging society that is producing fewer children.

Japanese intellectuals are worried about Japan's marginalization in future global competition. With that concern in mind, this year could be a chance for Japan to regain diplomatic diversity, especially as the US president-elect Barack Obama advocates international cooperation over the unilateralism characterized by the George W Bush administration.

A highly possible change of government in national elections - from the ruling LDP to the main opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) - would also accelerate such a move. The DPJ has advocated policies of multilateral cooperation while calling for a more equal partnership with the US. The DPJ has often refused to support US policies, notably on the war in Iraq.

Moreover, with the financial crisis triggered by the collapse of America's "casino capitalism", Japanese politicians and intellectuals are increasingly looking to the East Asian Community (EAC) - a proposed economic and political bloc equivalent to the European Union. This potential grouping is aimed at deepening economic ties and addressing problems with food, energy and the environment. It would definitely broaden Asia's influence in the world and protect its members from external economic shockwaves.

"Asia will continue to be an epicenter of world growth in the 21st century and will be modernizing further," Kazuo Mizuno, chief economist at Mitsubishi UFJ Securities Co in Tokyo, told Asia Times Online. "With more middle-class people emerging in Asia, Japan should target them as end-consumers."

Economic upheaval is shaking American hegemony in many quarters of the globe. In Japan, many believe "Pax Americana", backed by US capitalism, the US dollar-based international monetary system and so-called Washington Consensus policies, has already reached its end. If not, some believe, the US will soon lack the financial resources to maintain it.

According to a New York Times report, Obama warned on Tuesday that the US faced the prospect of "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery that we are working on". He also said he was troubled by the staggering $1 trillion figure, adding: "I'm going to be willing to make some very difficult choices on how we get a handle on this deficit."

Pressure is building for Japan - as well as China and South Korea - to accelerate the integration of Asia. In an epoch-making event on December 13, the leaders of the three nations held their first-ever three-way summit in Fukuoka, Japan. The summit signals a new phase of cooperation between the North-East Asian neighbors.

East Asia's three biggest economies are now showing a united front to counter the adverse effects of global financial turmoil. They are now calling for enhanced "regional cooperation" and stressing the need for strengthening the "surveillance mechanism" to monitor regional financial markets. Japan and China expanded credit lines for currency agreements with South Korea, where Seoul is struggling to shore up the buffeted Korean won.

Leaders of the three countries hadn't held such a formal summit since the aftermath of World War II. In fact, regional relations have mostly been tense. Old animosities between Japan and China, and Japan and South Korea, were inflamed by former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine memorializing Japan's war dead. There have also been divisive sovereignty disputes in the East China Sea.

But business-oriented leaders in the region are now looking beyond the old wounds. The three nations now account for nearly 17% of the world's economic output and almost 75% of the Asian economy.

East Asia unites
According to Eiji Yamashita, an economics professor at Osaka City University, even before today's global financial crisis, the integration of Asia had been accelerated by two previous regional economic crises.

The first was the sharp increase in foreign direct investment to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries by Japanese firms. This corresponded with the sharp appreciation of the Japanese yen after the Plaza Accord in 1985, Yamashita told The Council on East Asian Community (CEAC) in late November. This triggered the creation of cross-border production networks in East Asia, which closely connected different stages of production in manufacturing industries. Yamashita said this informal economic integration was now an invaluable asset to the regional economy.

The second was the Asian financial crisis of 1997 which propelled the formal integration of Asia, according to Yamashita. The Chiang Mai Initiative of May 2000 - a move to create a network of bilateral currency swap arrangements among ASEAN and Japan, China and South Korea (ASEAN+3) - ushered in a new stage of integration, Yamashita said.

According to Yamashita, the momentum for Asian integration has been slowed since 2005 with two regional frameworks - the ASEAN+3 and the East Asia Summit (EAS) comprising 16 countries, including India, Australia and New Zealand - dissipating its importance.

Japan has advocated the idea of the EAS while China has supported the expansion of the ASEAN+3. The result has been a leadership struggle between the region's two largest economies.

"It is expected that the current crisis will put an end to this stagnation period and the momentum will be regained for the regional integration of Asia," Yamashita said. "The last thing the Japanese government should do is, of course, impede this move in the right direction."

The social and cultural integration of China, Japan and Korea trade is also developing rapidly, especially among the young. A new catchphrase in East Asia translates to "Let's feel Japan."

Post-war Japanese diplomatic policy has been often described as "toeing the US line". But the current economic crisis is bringing about a sea-change in the world order.

Japan's efforts to establish the East Asian Community by reconciling with Asian neighbors could lead to regional peace and security. The US, which spiked Japan's proposal during the 1997 economic crisis for an Asian Monetary Fund, should not hamper Tokyo's efforts to build an Asian community. That is, if Washington really wants to increase prosperity in East Asia.

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected]

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
I already posted an article about a direct Yuan exchange. If you want a real game changer and I think this may become a possibility, combine that concept with the last article on Japan.

A direct Yuan-Yen interchange will signify a major change in the financial world order. Now put the Korean Won too to create a new Yuan-Won-Yen interchange, and you have in effect, a true new economic bloc.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Canada and China: Why is this man frowning?
Three years into his leadership and Prime Minister Stephen Harper still hasn't made a single trip to China. It's a known fact that bilateral relations have been frosty, but just where exactly is Canada's trade policy with China heading? Is change on the horizon?

By Rachel Pulfer Rachel Pulfer is the U.S. correspondent for Canadian Business. A journalist since 1999, and features editor of Canadian Business from 2005 to 2007, she has been nominated for three National Magazine Awards. In Letter from America, her online column, Rachel comments on economic and cultural developments in the U.S. and their significance for Canada. More stories by this author >>
It’s 7:30 p.m., the Grand Ballroom at New York’s Plaza Hotel. A glittering crowd has gathered for the annual gala dinner of the National Committee on United States–China Relations. A not-for-profit body, it sponsored one of the first moments of détente between Communist China and the United States: the visit of China’s Ping-Pong team to America in 1972. What a difference 40 years makes. Today, the Committee’s guest is Treasury secretary Henry Paulson. He has interrupted one of the busiest schedules on Capitol Hill to speak to an audience that includes China’s ambassador to the United States and the president of a newly minted U.S. division of a Chinese bank.

Why is Paulson here? He can’t afford not to be.

At a time when consumption is slowing worldwide, China represents one of the few growth spots left in the global economy. In November, responding to news that suggests China’s growth slowed to 9% in the third quarter, the Chinese government announced a US$586-billion stimulus package. The goal is to boost domestic demand — making the Chinese market potentially even more attractive for exporters. Meanwhile, Chinese investors continue to invest in U.S. assets and Treasury bills, keeping the greenback strong and the economy liquid.

By the first week of December — six weeks after the Manhattan event — Paulson was over in Beijing, hashing out issues with China’s minister of commerce, Chen Deming. That trip was part of a biannual visit known as the Strategic Economic Dialogue, a special forum set up by presidents George W. Bush and Hu Jintao in September 2006 to keep lines of communication on trade issues open. The Chinese currency has been depreciating of late, making Chinese exports cheaper while rendering U.S. exports more expensive — a major flashpoint at the talks. Yet both officials also stressed their commitment to work together through tough economic times.

Now turn to this humble dominion. With economists revising Canada’s growth prospects steadily downward, you might think engaging China should be high on the to-do list. In a world where few are buying, China represents the market of last resort. But on China — as on everything else of late — Canadian politicians are stubbornly charting their own path.

Three years into his leadership, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has yet to visit Beijing. What’s more, judging from Harper’s comments and actions on the matter at home, the relationship is anything but a priority. That’s why, in an exclusive interview in late November, Canadian Business asked Harper’s new minister of international trade, Stockwell Day, just what, exactly, Canada’s trade policy toward China is.

In reply, Day stressed that trade with all nations is a priority for the Conservatives. “My mandate is to keep as many doors open to trade with Canadians as possible,” Day said. “Now is not a time to be closing off opportunities.”

When pressed for details, Day’s comments on trade with China are most striking for their negative space. Though he says the prime minister “plans” to visit China, echoing comments Harper has also made, it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. Of course, Harper has his hands full managing the current political crisis. Yet according to Day, who spoke to CB before the constitutional ruckus in Ottawa, neither the PM nor he had scheduled plans to visit China at that time, either.

Harper’s government has announced six new consular bureaus in regional centres in China, and cabinet ministers head over to Beijing with some regularity. But according to China hands, what the prime minister himself says and does carries the most clout in Chinese eyes. And by all accounts, he’s been MIA. Meanwhile, Day says that initiatives to engage the relationship on a higher political level, along the lines of the Strategic Economic Dialogue, are not in the works. “We don’t have a plan to start up a bilateral discussion forum right now. We’re building up the relationship piece by piece,” says Day. There are no plans to run trade missions, either: “We believe in small government.” This contrasts strongly with the Liberal approach, in which the PM led delegations from business and the provinces to meet with Chinese counterparts and, ideally, sign contracts.

Day doesn’t rule out trade missions down the road. “There’s a place for flag-waving,” he goes on. “But we believe in putting resources where they will be most effective: keeping tax levels reasonable, reducing the GST.”

Fair enough. But what reducing the GST has to do with engaging China on trade is anyone’s guess.

Canadians have never been blind to the opportunity China represents. Back in 1961, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker negotiated sales of wheat to China before the rest of the West even acknowledged the Communist country existed. But times have changed. In November, the Canada China Business Council led a delegation of businesses and premiers to Beijing, Shanghai and Chongqing. Notably absent was Stephen Harper.

On China, the signals from Ottawa have been mixed. Even as it’s been refusing to engage China politically, the federal government has led the build-out of the Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative, pledging more than $900 million toward infrastructure designed to facilitate the flow of shipping containers entering North America from the Asia-Pacific. The Gateway includes a new port in Prince Rupert and enhanced rail links from B.C. to Chicago. The goal, says Day, is to send China the message that Canada is open for business. It’s the “if you build it, they will come” approach to trade policy.

Paul Evans, one of Canada’s pre-eminent China experts and a professor at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, describes the Harper government’s strategy on China to date as one of “cool politics, warm economics. But by all accounts,” says Evans, “it has reached a dead end.”

So what is the prime minister doing on China? Instead of attending the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing, Harper made statements that suggested he would not sell bitumen-based crude oil to countries with poor environmental records. (That’s politician-speak for China, says Evans.) Harper’s decision to meet with the Dalai Lama in Canada in late 2007 prompted an angry reaction from Lu Shumin, Beijing’s former chief ambassador to Canada. All this, says Evans, has put Canada into a situation where “we are far behind the number of competitive nations that are trying to work with the Chinese. The synapses are just not firing.”

John Gruetzner begs to differ. Now a consultant based in Beijing, Gruetzner has worked in China for more than 25 years. He insists Harper’s hands-off foreign policy is in keeping with the man’s conservative philosophy. Rather than focusing on the politics, says Gruetzner, it’s more important to look at the relationship statistically. He points to September numbers that show a jump of 21% in our exports to China in the past year. Foreign direct investment from Canada into China is also up 14%. “It’s time for businesses to get beyond the mission stage and engage on the ground,” Gruetzner says.

Government statistics bear Gruetzer’s view out. In 2007, our exports to China were worth $9.3 billion, a 20%-plus increase over 2006. Imports from China were $38.3 billion, an 11% increase. Day is at pains to emphasize the importance of this growth. “Within two years of us being in power, we have seen a 150% increase in Canadian merchandise exports,” he says. “China is our third-largest market.”

Maybe. But according to Statistics Canada, that roaring trade through 2007 was dominated by sales of commodities — metals, potash and chemicals. Between July and November 2008, prices for those goods dropped by as much as 40%. It’s unlikely robust trade growth will continue in 2009.

Furthermore, Evans and Sarah Kutulakos, executive director of the Canada China Business Council, say that Canada has been losing ground to other nations. Back in 2006, Canada was last in a list of Top 10 trading partners put out monthly by China’s ministry of commerce; by 2008, Canada had dropped off the list completely. According to Bob Kwauk, a Canadian tax expert and founding partner of the Beijing branch of Blakes law firm, Harper’s “cool politics, warm economics” strategy is at least partly related. “In the lead-up to the Olympics, former Australian prime minister John Howard came to sell Olympic-related infrastructure, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was here selling Airbuses and nuclear power plant technology — and President Bush has been here several times,” explains Kwauk. “By not having our prime minister here when every other head of government has been — well, it puts us at a disadvantage.”

Heads of government don’t usually come to Canada to promote business, acknowledges Kwauk, but the Chinese system is different: “In China, most of the major purchases are in the infrastructure area. The companies making these purchases are heavily influenced by the state.”

Kwauk says he would not want to see a return to the Team Canada approach taken by Chrétien. “That guy was here way too much. He’d claim he’d signed all these contracts worth billions, but then he’d leave, and nothing would be forthcoming,” says Kwauk. “It ended up tarnishing our credibility.” But in tough times, the Harper government’s alternative — of non-engagement coupled with pot shots from afar on China’s human rights and environmental record — isn’t helping, either.

According to Evans, Harper’s policy toward China isn’t irrational. Instead, he argues, it’s based on domestic political calculations. Opinion polls published by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada in April show Canadians harbour negative feelings toward China on human rights, product safety and growing military power. Evans believes that in such a climate, it would be difficult for a Canadian government to get elected while embracing a Team Canada approach to China. In that light, Harper’s reluctance to engage directly with China merely reflects Canadians’ own ambivalence towards the complicated economic giant. Unfortunately, that reluctance could pose problems for our export-driven economy.

Complicating the situation is Harper’s selection of Day for the post of International Trade. Day carries strategically unfortunate baggage from an earlier era. While in Opposition,he became known for his fiery speeches and op-eds decrying the human rights situation in China. He’s acclaimed a hero on blogs linked to the outlawed Chinese group Falun Gong. However, a record of grandstanding on human rights won’t help him at the negotiation table. “Day has said a lot of negative things about China in the past,” says Evans. “It is important that he visit China quickly, to get a sense of its dynamism and complexity.”

Investment banker Bill Majcher, of Hong Kong–based Baron Group, goes further in his criticism of the human-rights-versus-trade school of western thinking on China. “When I see politicians make big bold statements about big bad China, I get angry,” he explains. “I think: You are not speaking for me, and you are also not speaking with authority. You have bought into the views of a number of special interest groups. There’s this fear in the West that China will dominate,” Majcher goes on. “But 120 years ago China and India were the world’s largest economies. This isn’t new. So rather than fear it, try to understand it.”

Even members of Harper’s inner circle are getting impatient. John Reynolds was co-chair of the national Conservative party campaign in 2006 and is now a member of the Queen’s Privy Council. As he points out, “We traded with the United States right throughout the 1950s, before the civil rights movement. At the time, the United States was not a place where human rights were prevalent, either.”

Day insists his views on China have been misrepresented. “At that time, I also commented on the benefits of trade with China, but that hasn’t gotten as much coverage,” he says. As proof he’s up to the job, he points to an 80-minute meeting he had with his Chinese counterpart, Chen Deming, at the recent APEC summit in Lima. “We had good talks,” he says. The week before, Chen and Day signed a memorandum of understanding, ensuring Canadian businesses have free access to financial information while operating in China. Day says: “And we are now in the advanced stages of signing an agreement that enhances protections for Canadian investments within China.”

But a formal mechanism for discussion isn’t on the cards. That’s too bad, in CCBC executive director Kutulakos’s view. “Behind closed doors, the Chinese prefer engagement,” she says. “They can get in a room with their U.S. counterpart and beat each other up with baseball bats — and agree to disagree — but at least they talk and things get resolved.”

All is not lost, however. Evans says putting the Beijing ambassadorial posting on equal footing with the Washington, D.C., mission — and installing someone like former trade minister David Emerson, who, unlike Day, has extensive experience in China — would help repair the relationship. What’s more, there is some evidence that the home audience might still be open to an enhanced economic relationship, if properly sold: APFC opinion polls show Canadians are not equating negative feelings about China with a closed attitude toward trade.

At least, not yet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I'm sure Canada is hurting now since the price per barrel collapsed below the cost to extract oil form those shale rocks now. The article above suggests Canada is about to attempt getting back into the good graces of China trade to fill-in lost revenues. Canada should get a taste they've been dishing for the last three years.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
US Debt losing its appeal for China

By Keith Bradsher
HONG KONG: China has bought more than $1 trillion in American debt, but as the global downturn has intensified, Beijing is starting to keep more of its money at home -- a shift that could pose some challenges to the U.S. government in the near future but eventually may even produce salutary effects on the world economy.
At first glance, the declining Chinese appetite for U.S. debt -- apparent in a series of hints from Chinese policy makers over the past two weeks, with official statistics due for release in the next few days -- comes at an inopportune time.
On Tuesday, the U.S. president-elect, Barack Obama, said Americans should get used to the prospect of "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come" as he seeks to finance an $800 billion economic stimulus package.
Normally, China would be the most avid taker of the debt required to pay for those deficits, mainly short-term Treasury securities.
In the past five years, China has spent as much as one-seventh of its entire economic output on the purchase of foreign debt -- largely U.S. Treasury bonds and American mortgage-backed securities.
But now, Beijing is seeking to pay for its own $600 billion economic stimulus -- just as tax revenue falls sharply as the Chinese economy slows.
Regulators have ordered banks to lend more money to small and midsize enterprises, many of which are struggling with slower exports, and Chinese bankers say they are being instructed to lend more to local governments to allow them to build new roads and other projects as part of the stimulus program.
"All the key drivers of China's Treasury purchases are disappearing," said Ben Simpfendorfer, an economist in the Hong Kong office of the Royal Bank of Scotland. "There's a waning appetite for dollars and a waning appetite for Treasuries. And that complicates the outlook for interest rates."
Fitch Ratings, the credit rating agency, forecasts that China's foreign reserves will increase by $177 billion this year -- a large number, but down sharply from an estimated $415 billion last year.
In the United States, China's voracious demand for American bonds has helped keep interest rates low for borrowers ranging from the government to home buyers. Reduced Chinese enthusiasm for buying those bonds takes away some of this dampening effect.
But with U.S. interest rates still at very low levels after recent cuts to stimulate the economy, it is quite cheap for the U.S. Treasury to raise capital now. And there seem to be no shortage of buyers for Treasury bonds and other debt instruments: Prices for U.S. debt have soared as yields have declined.
The long-term effects of this shift in capital flows -- with China keeping more of its money home and the U.S. economy becoming less dependent on one lender -- are unclear, but the phenomenon is something economists have said is long overdue.
What is clear is that the effect of the global downturn on China's finances has been drastic. As recently as 2007, tax revenue soared 32%, as factories across China ran flat out. But by November, government revenue had actually dropped 3% from a year earlier. That prompted Finance Minister Xie Xuren to warn Monday that 2009 would be "a difficult fiscal year."
A senior central bank official mentioned last month that China's $1.9 trillion in foreign exchange reserves had actually begun to shrink.
The reserves -- mainly bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury and by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance companies -- had been rising quickly ever since the Asian financial crisis in 1998.
The strength of the dollar against the euro in the fourth quarter of last year contributed to slower growth in China's foreign reserves, said Fan Gang, an academic adviser to China's central bank, at a conference in Beijing on Tuesday.
The central bank keeps track of the total value of its reserves in dollars and a weaker euro means that euro-denominated assets in those reserves are worth less in dollars, decreasing the total value of the reserves.
But the pace of China's accumulation of reserves began slowing in the third quarter along with the slowing of the Chinese economy, and appears to reflect much broader shifts.
China manages its reserves with considerable secrecy, but economists believe about 70% is in dollar-denominated assets and most of the rest in euros.
The country has bankrolled its huge reserves by effectively requiring its entire banking sector, which is state-controlled, to hand nearly one-fifth of its deposits over to the central bank. The central bank, in turn, has used the money to buy foreign bonds.
Now the central bank is rapidly reducing this requirement and pushing banks to lend more money instead.
At the same time, three new trends mean that fewer dollars are pouring into China -- and as fewer dollars flow into China, the government has fewer dollars to buy American bonds and help finance the U.S. trade and budget deficits.
The first, little-noticed trend is that the monthly pace of foreign direct investment in China has fallen by more than a third since the summer. Multinational companies are hoarding their cash and cutting back on the construction of factories.
The second trend is that the combination of a housing bust and a two-thirds fall in the mainland Chinese stock markets over the past year has resulted in moves by many overseas investors -- and even some Chinese -- to get money quietly out of the country.
They are doing so despite China's fairly stringent currency controls, prompting the director of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, Hu Xiaolian, to warn in a statement Tuesday of "abnormal" capital flows across China's borders; she provided no statistics.
China's most porous border in terms of money flows is with Hong Kong, a semi-autonomous Chinese territory that has its own internationally convertible currency. So much Chinese money has poured into Hong Kong and been converted into Hong Kong dollars that the territory has had to issue billions of dollars' worth of extra currency in the past two months to meet the demand, shattering its previous records for such issuance.
A third trend that may further slow the flow of dollars into China is the reduction of its huge trade surpluses.
China's trade surplus set another record in November, at $40.1 billion. But because prices of Chinese imports like oil are starting to recover while demand remains weak for Chinese exports like consumer electronics, most economists expect China to run trade surpluses closer to $30 billion a month.
That would give China a sizable sum to invest abroad. But it would be considerably less than $50 billion a month that it poured into international financial markets -- mainly U.S. bond markets -- during the first half of 2008.
"The pace of foreign currency flows into China has to slow," and therefore the pace of China's reinvestment of that currency in foreign bonds will also slow, said Dariusz Kowalczyk, the chief investment officer at SJS Markets, a Hong Kong securities firm.
For a combination of financial and political reasons, the decline in China's purchases of dollar-denominated assets may be less steep than the overall decline in its purchases of foreign assets.
Many mainland Chinese companies are keeping more of their dollar revenues overseas instead of bringing them home and converting them into yuan for deposit in Chinese banks.
In essence, they would not show up on the central bank's books. So, overall Chinese demand for dollars would not be falling as much as the government's demand for dollars, said Sherman Chan, an economist in the Sydney office of Moody's Economy.com.
Treasury data from Washington suggest the Chinese government might be allocating a higher proportion of its foreign currency to the dollar in recent weeks and less to the euro. The data also suggest China is buying more Treasuries and fewer bonds from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
Figures from the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Treasury point to a sharp increase in Chinese holdings of Treasury bonds in October.
China passed Japan in September as the largest overseas holder of Treasuries, and took a commanding lead in October, with $652.9 billion compared to $585.5 billion for Japan.
But specialists in international money flows caution against relying too heavily on these statistics. They mostly count bonds that the Chinese government has bought directly, and exclude purchases made through banks in London and Hong Kong; with the financial crisis weakening many banks, the Chinese government has a strong incentive to buy more of its bonds directly.
The overall pace of foreign reserve accumulation in China seems to have slowed so much that even if all the remaining purchases were U.S. Treasuries, the Chinese government's overall purchases of dollar-denominated assets will have fallen, economists said.
But China's leadership is likely to avoid any complete halt to purchases of Treasuries for fear of looking like it is torpedoing the chances for a U.S. economic recovery at a vulnerable time, said Paul Tang, the chief economist at the Bank of East Asia here.
"This is a political decision," he said. "This is not purely an investment decision."

Sphere: Related Content
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Why China Works
A look at bright spots in the recession begins with Beijing, where state control is looking smart.

Rana Foroohar
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jan 19, 2009
China is the only major economy that is likely to show significant growth this year, because it is the only one that routinely breaks every rule in the economic textbook. There is no truly free market in China, where the state doctors statistics, manipulates the stock markets, fixes prices in key industries, owns many strategic industries outright, and staffs key bank posts with Communist Party members and tells them to whom they should lend, and in what they should invest. In fact, the main reason China is not slowing as fast as the other big five economies is its capacity for what economists ridicule, in normal times, as state meddling: it limited foreign investment in the banking sector and didn't embrace the exotic financial innovations that are the melting core of the global credit crisis.

Why does China's brand of command capitalism work? The question has long intrigued economists, who tend to cast the state as hopelessly stupid, the market as naturally brilliant. Now that the United States and Europe are moving toward state control—by nationalizing the banking and car industries, and imposing heavy new regulation on the financial industry—the question has a new urgency. China, the poorest and most chaotic big economy, looks like the one best positioned to navigate what may be the worst global downturn in seven decades.

In a time of crisis, China's bureaucrats can pick from traditional market tools, like their Western counterparts, and from the arsenal of command capitalism. Early last year, as the housing market was overheating, they simply ordered bankers to cut back on housing loans: then as home sales began to fall, they offered market incentives, like lower taxes on home purchases. In recent weeks they launched economic rescue efforts similar to those in the west, including a huge ($600 billion) plan to ramp up government spending and big interest-rate cuts. But they've also issued orders that would be seen as improper "intervention" in the West—for example, calling last week on state industries, including steel and construction, to "actively increase" their roles in the economy by buying up new assets at home and abroad.

Once seen as the bad habit of an immature economy, China's state meddling is now seen as a bulwark of stability. "Government control of the most capital intensive sectors leaves me optimistic about China's prospects," says CLSA economist Andy Rothman. "The government can say to companies in these sectors, 'Continue to spend, don't defer your investment plans'." Despite the falls in its biggest export markets and its own stock markets, China's economy looks likely to grow more than 7 percent in 2009—down from the double-digit pace of recent years, but stronger than most. Corporate loan rates are actually up, as state banks loosen credit. In a nation where investment is "the backbone of sustainable growth," accounting for 40 percent of GDP, the state is once again ramping up investment to fight serious threats to growth, says Morgan Stanley Asia chief Stephen Roach. "What we're seeing is that the Chinese command-and-control system can actually work more effectively than other market based systems in times of economic stress," he says.

When the original capitalist roader, Deng Xiaoping, said "It doesn't matter if a cat is white or black, as long as it catches the mouse," he put economic growth above ideology purity. Now Chinese leaders quote Deng to defend the basic deal he offered the Chinese people: autocratic capitalism would provide economic growth, while the Communist Party would retain absolute political power. Many of these leaders now argue that a democratic China couldn't have survived—let alone flourished—in a global recession. "China isn't ready for a democratic free-market system," says Fang Xinghai, the Western-trained director of the Shanghai Financial Services Office. "Think about what happened in the U.S. elections in 2000—if that had happened in China, there would be a war. The genius of Deng is that when he put China on the path to a market economy 30 years ago, he knew the country needed a stable political system [to withstand the changes of reform]. Whatever our system is, it is suitable for China."

China works because it is governed by a radical pragmatism that has focused on a slow but steady shift toward freer markets. Deng called it "crossing the river by feeling for the stones." The state still exerts a strong and stabilizing hand, but it has unleashed a private sector that now controls at least half the economy, and as much as 70 percent if you include state-owned companies that are in fact allowed to operate as private firms. That's up from around 17 percent in the early 1990s. Some 60 percent of GDP growth, and two thirds of new job creation now come from the private sector, according to CLSA.

In 1995, China began a revolutionary dismantling of state-run industry, laying off 46 million state workers—the equivalent of the entire workforce of France and Italy—over the next six years alone. In the years following, the streamlining has continued, sharply raising profitability at state-run firms (it was up 38 percent between 2004 and 2005, for example), and the private sector was allowed to play an increasingly important role in the economy. Rothman calls it "radical change, but over an extended time period." During this period numerous books on Russia's transition to capitalism were translated into Chinese. Above all, the Chinese wanted to avoid the chaos that followed Russia's "big-bang reforms" of the early '90s, which created a corrupt, Kremlin-sponsored economic oligarchy that still haunts Russia today.

China's crackdowns on political dissent have obscured the daring risks it takes on economic reform, even in crises. China opened to Western investment at an earlier stage of development than either Japan or South Korea—in the early 1980s, when its average yearly income was only 760rmb ($500), because Deng recognized that global trade was the way out of national poverty. He also freed peasants to seek jobs in cities, a risky move in a nation with a long history of mobile peasant rebellions. Even after the Tiananmen massacre of 1989, Deng continued to push economic reform. During the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, China joined the World Trade Organization, committing itself to a wider opening of its domestic markets. Around the same time, the government allowed laid-off workers to start businesses and buy up state-owned housing for a song, founding an ownership society almost overnight, and setting the stage for a middle-class society, in what Rothman calls "the biggest one-time transfer of wealth in the history of the world."

Now, as a worse crisis gains momentum, Beijing continues to push market reforms in key sectors, even as it reasserts control in others. Banks are one main target of reform. "Capital markets are still dominated by bank lending. We have too few products and we need to get more institutional investors into the market," says Fang Xinghai. To that end, China is boldly moving beyond stocks into new types of complex securities, including stock index funds, corporate bonds and other debt products, and even options and futures trading—albeit simple oil futures, rather than the complex credit derivatives that tanked Western markets. The fact that Chinese leaders understand even in the midst of the credit crisis that more sophisticated forms of securitization can play a stabilizing role is a sign of strategic thinking, and great skill at learning from others' mistakes. Asked what he admires most in Western counterparts, Jiang Jianqing, chairman of China's largest state bank, ICBC, says, "Innovation. Americans have an endless passion for it. Perhaps in the past, it hasn't been so well regulated, but you can't stop it. It's one of the most important ways to push enterprise forward."

Even more farsighted is the new, landmark land-reform program, which would make it possible for Chinese peasants to rent or lease their land to outsiders (including corporations). Simply figuring out who owns which properties can be a Byzantine task in China, so land reform could take decades—but the idea is already generating excitement. In November, real-estate consulting firm Jones Lang LaSalle estimated that land reform could unlock rural property worth as much as $2.5 trillion. "Land reform will be Hu Jintao's lasting legacy," says JLL national research director Michael Klibaner. Turning peasants into land-owning consumers could go a long way toward creating a consumer society, reducing China's dependence on exports, and rebalancing the world economy.

Once Chinese leaders signal a new direction, they rarely waver, says Rothman. Witness the political battle over American charges that China is deliberately holding down the value of the yuan to boost its exports, a charge that ignores the gradual 21.5 percent rise in the yuan that had already taken place between the summer of 2005 and 2008. While the yuan did fall a bit in recent months, most economists believe Beijing will continue to allow a modest appreciation, weighing its need for export competitiveness against the world's need for more balanced trade flows.

This balance between free and managed markets can also be seen in China's approach to price fixing and state control in key sectors like financial services, telecoms, utilities and energy. Some of these industries are partially privatized—in telecoms, equipment markets are open to foreigners, because they bring capital and expertise that eventually trickles down to local firms, like the now internationally competitive Huawei. But the more lucrative services market is still run by authorities, who set prices on mobile-phone calls. "China does control prices, it's true," says Fang. "But it moves one step behind the market. The market is always the baseline."

Recently, for example, China has been cutting fuel subsidies to bring prices closer to international norms. It's part of a 15-year process, that, according to CLSA's Rothman, has taken the percentage of total consumer prices fixed by the state from 95 percent to as low as 5 percent. The slow easing was designed to avoid the 1,000 percent burst of inflation that hit Russia from 1991 to 1992 after Moscow deregulated prices. "The Chinese don't want shock therapy, which has proven to be all shock, and no therapy," says Cheng Li, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute.

The leadership's faith in its own ability to mold markets may derive from the fact that most are engineers, trained to build from a plan. Eight out of the nine top party officials come from engineering backgrounds, and the practicality of their profession may also help explain why they didn't buy into risky and Western financial innovation. At a recent Chinese business conference in Barcelona, Xu Kuangdi, vice chairman of the advisory body to China's Parliament, and President of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, mocked the "virtual" products sold over the last decade by Western bankers: "They had Ph.D.s in physics inventing tools that the banks themselves couldn't understand or regulate. Investors listened to their stories and were told how wonderful all this would be, how much better it was than producing real goods. Everyone was working in a dream."

A command-and-control system run by relatively skilled technocrats allows China to get things done, quickly. "I'm always struck by the ability of the Chinese state to move in a coherent manner and to marshal its people and the resources of the country to a common target," noted David Murphy, head of CLSA's China Reality research division, in a recent report on the country's efforts to bolster growth. Contrast this to Russia, where thuggish autocracy has created an "anything goes" environment in which neither investors nor most officials have any idea what might happen from one moment to the next.

The ruling engineers preside over a system that is highly process-oriented and obsessed with performance metrics. One economist who works closely with top government officials notes that many of them serve the same brand of Chateau Lafite Bordeaux at their dinner parties because of its exceptional rating by the Wine Spectator's Robert Parker. Ambassador Wu Jianmin of the Chinese foreign ministry recalls a recent meeting with a deputy mayor from the city of Wuxi who could compare in detail his own local economy with that of the United States in the 1970s. The official was concerned about why his service sector hadn't grown larger, given the respective per capita income growth (the town's party secretary has since been dispatched to America to hunt for service-sector talent).

Leaders who don't meet internal performance standards are, more often than not, held accountable, and do get sacked, which is still unusual in many developing economies. For instance, the scandal in which at least six Chinese kids died and 300,000 fell ill from toxic milk mixed with melamine to give a falsely high protein level led to the swift sacking in September of six city officials—including the mayor and party secretary—in the hometown of milk-powder maker Sanlu. China's top food safety inspector also stepped down and the company's chairwoman has gone to trial. Such moves seldom fully satisfy public anger but they do rattle officials.

Clear performance targets are part of an efficiency ethos that the Chinese also tend to admire in Americans. Four out of five high-ranking officials now train for some period of time at major universities in the United States (the Kennedy School at Harvard has been nicknamed "the fourth Communist Party school"). What the Chinese people still want at this stage is prosperity, and stability, which they are pursuing with a pragmatic, capitalist zeal that arguably surpasses even that of Americans. Huang Ming, who teaches at both Cornell in New York and the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing, jokes that while he can command respect in the United States simply by telling people he's a tenured professor at an Ivy League university, Chinese people say, "OK, that's good, but how much money do you make?"

Of course, the increase in Chinese prosperity has also created more opportunities for corruption, yet steady progress is visible even when it comes to graft. In just under a decade, China has fallen from 52nd most corrupt country to the 72nd, according to Transparency International's ranking of the world's most corrupt regimes. While Chinese and Western business people don't like to be quoted by name on the subject, they seem to agree that corruption in China tends to be of the soft, "wheel-greasing" variety, rather than the violent and disruptive type. "You don't have to worry about someone coming to your door with a bulge under their arm," laughs one British businessman working in Shanghai. One chairman of a large European firm, who has worked in a number of developing markets, makes this comparison: "In Russia, if there's $100 in the bridge-building pot, the official takes $90. In China, they take $30, and at least you know the bridge will eventually get built."

Many point to the current insider-trading case involving the detention of China's richest man, Huang Guangyu (the founder of electronics retailer Gome), as proof that the government is also getting more serious about prosecuting corruption. Independent economist Andy Xie (formerly of Morgan Stanley) says that the more important point is that Gome, the company, will most likely survive regardless of what happens to Huang—a sign that Chinese markets are maturing. Xie also notes that recent legal changes in stock-ownership law have made markets more liquid, putting them farther out of the control of state authorities. That's one reason authorities have tried since August to revive the stock market by scrapping the stamp tax on share purchases but in vain. The market is getting too free for the state to control.

That said, there's no doubt the state's hand in the economy will grow in this downturn. Much of the new stimulus package will flow through state-controlled sectors like transport and power and construction, which can spend it quickly. Beijing has also chosen this moment to issue new 3G mobile licenses, which will further funnel money through the state telecoms sector. And in Hong Kong, there's evidence that investors are moving money from commercial to state banks, because of the implicit promise of state support.

Perhaps the most intriguing evolution in China's hybrid markets is in the way leaders are tracking public sentiment, including political sentiment. Beijing is sending out consultants to teach local officials American-style public-relations tactics, part of a new "openness" campaign designed to quiet public protests triggered by economic tensions. Last November in Chongqing, China's largest municipality, party secretary Bo Xilai went out in the street to talk down thousands of striking taxi drivers, an almost unprecedented move for a senior party official. Bo later brought together a meeting between government officials, drivers and citizens' representatives to hammer out a deal that included lower management fees, increased fuel subsidies and approval for the drivers to form a union. "The government is learning from the mistakes of the past," says Wang Shuo, managing editor of the Beijing-based economic magazine Caijing. "There has been a lot of social unrest in the last decade, but they are handling things much better—no blood, and no major repercussions. They understand that is a life or death issue for them."

Savvy management of public opinion may prove crucial as economic conditions head south. The Chinese love the idea of choice—reality TV shows similar to "American Idol," which allows viewers to vote on the winner, are hugely popular. While they can't vote on their political leaders, in many places they can now post their views about local government on city-run Web sites, and local leaders are required to answer individual complaints within three days. Public rankings of various city departments are posted based on the number of positive and negative comments.

It's part of a government strategy to use the Internet and public opinion to put pressure on provincial officials, as well as to influence policy decisions. Victor Yuan, chairman of Horizon, a Beijing market-research firm, conducted public polls to help the government set Olympic ticket rates and figure out what to charge for natural-gas upgrades in remote areas, in order to avoid public outrage over too high prices. Next year, he'll be launching a poll-based ranking of 10,000 middle- and upper-level Chinese officials, and Yuan believes it's possible such a poll might be extended to include the very top officials, perhaps by 2014. "This is very much a performance-oriented administration, and they need to understand what the people want in order to avoid trouble," says Yuan. "Since Deng, leaders are no longer supermen. They need legitimization, and the approval of the people."

It's getting tougher even for radical pragmatists to deliver on Deng's promise. Thirty years ago, there were 963 million people in China, and 30 percent of them were hungry. Today, there are 1.3 billion, and 97 percent of them have a full stomach, but the step up to the middle class (in which only 6 percent of Chinese live today) is harder. Ruchir Sharma of Morgan Stanley has pointed out that China's per capita GDP recently hit $3,000—the level at which Japan's miracle economy began to slow to a more mature pace.

China's successful use of command capitalism also carries, at most, limited lessons for the United States or Europe. It's much easier to boost growth by ordering engineers working in an autocratic system to build roads where there are none, as in parts in China, than to stimulate growth in a developed nation like the U.S. Still, the fact that an increasingly rich China still works so well is worth studying, not least because the credit crisis is provoking a wider questioning of free-market orthodoxy. "It is worth remembering that China is the only major nation that is experiencing neither a credit crisis, nor a crisis of confidence," notes Rothman. "Its still safe to say that nobody worries about the Chinese government's ability to get things done." As Wen Jiabao has said, "confidence is worth more than gold," and the Chinese people still believe in their system—at least for now.

With Melinda Liu and Mary Hennock in Beijing and Duncan Hewitt in Shanghai

URL:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
""The leadership's faith in its own ability to mould markets may derive from the fact that most are engineers, trained to build from a plan. Eight out of the nine top party officials come from engineering backgrounds, and the practicality of their profession may also help explain why they didn't buy into risky and Western financial innovation.""

I would have thought that their financial sector had'nt developed to the same level of sophistication would be the main reason, rather than the countries leaders being engineers,as a possibility.
Futhermore Chinas leaders were looking beyond basic level manufacturing and indulge in other activities to help secure the countries future. It was fortunate they were lagging in the financial services sector., but then again that does'nt explain why some sophisticated economies did'nt buy into these derivatives and other complex investment instruments.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I think China has a huge underground economy that's goes unchecked by the government. Some Western journalists have referred to it as the Wild West of Chinese capitalism. Since the underground economy is not a part of the official system, it cushions, so far, the ordinary Chinese from global hits in the international economy. What underground economy? It's the one where we saw ordinary Chinese buy a car when they certainly couldn't afford one nor get a loan if you go by official government statistics.
 

pla101prc

Senior Member
lol if ppl stop buying US treasury bonds for like a month the US economy will collapse. i dont think the Chinese and Japanese government will let that happen though
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Seeing the Banks are paying next to nothing in fixed deposit interest,and the stockmarket is a little unsettled, why dont the ordinary people buy them.
I also read some of the Hedge funds have returned a profit in Dec. Is it a sign things are turning for the better?
 
Top