"China Inc." - Here We Go Again
Back in the 1980s, I was a producer for a national weekly PBS foreign policy show called American Interests. We ran a lot of nifty programs on various aspects of the Cold War. Another abiding obsession of the chattering classes was the coming triumph of Japan Inc. over a hapless America. We regularly broadcast shows featuring the likes of Robert Reich, Chalmers Johnson (see H&R obit from yesterday), and Clyde Prestowitz predicting that the wise bureaucrats at the helm of Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry deftly deploying their industrial policy jujitsu would soon bury us Yanks. As evidence, critics of undirected American capitalism pointed out that Japan's economy was growing at 6 to 8 percent per year. Japan was exporting its way to prosperity and the U.S. was running a huge trade deficit with the East Asian powerhouse. Japan could do no wrong and America could do no right. Then the Japanese bubble burst.
Twenty years later, the new meme of would-be industrial policy mavens is China Inc. Promoters include Thomas Friedman and Clyde Prestowitz. China is growing at a blistering pace of 10 percent per year and exporting its way to prosperity. Once again, we are told that East Asian capitalism directed from the top by wise bureaucrats is going to outcompete the United States and toss us into the dustbin of histoy.
For some perspective, let's look at what happened over the past twenty years after the Japanese bubble burst in 1990. (Americans got to enjoy both the internet and housing bubbles over that period.) According the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in real terms U.S. per capita GDP in 1990 was $32,000 and Japanese per capita GDP was $28,000. This year, they are $43,000 and $34,000 respectively.
What about China? In 1990, its per capita GDP stood at $470 and is now $2,800. It would take almost 30 more years of the Chinese economy growing at a 10 percent annual rate for its per capita income to reach the current U.S. level.
So what's going on? Starting from a low economic base, Japan and China could grow fast after they allowed a modicum of economic freedom. Once that happened, it was relatively easy to grow fast by implementing technologies and practices pioneered in more advanced economies. Given China's still low per capita incomes, it has a lot more space to grow its economy. Instead of directing the economy from the top down, industrial planners are largely trying to claim credit for parades that have already taken off.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kenneth will be late to this thread. We had an extended session.
Monorail!
Kenneth! My very own little Kenneth.
The Chinese, if recent events are any indication, are at least smart enough to dump their dollar-backed assets prior to their devaluation.
The Japanese were buying up dollar denominated assets in the mid eighties, back when the dollar was going for about 250 yen. The slow slide of the dollar against the yen ended sometime in the early 90's with the dollar around 100 yen. Their assets, excluding whatever dividends, interest, and / or capital gains they made, were worth about 40-50% what they paid for them.
Oops.
All this was already pointed out in an article in the Weekly Standard by P.J. O'Rourke.
Yeah, and if I ever read the Weekly Standard, (four years ago) I might have known that.
Industrial policy and currency devaluation will turn us into a powerhouse!
Further support for deja vu all over again--I remember at the height of the Japan Inc. fear mongers were getting tons of airplay becasue such a large chunk of America's debt was in the hands of the Japanese...
Sound familiar?
What will we do when the Chinese dump all our bonds?!
Same as it ever was.
I came up in commercial real estate crunching numbers for a company that bought whole portfolios in the late '90s from their Japanese owners--Japanese companies that were still suffering the effects of Japan's misguided public policy.
Michael Crighton's Rising Sun was full of this attitude, which surprised me as Crighton is usually smarter than that.
Jesus. "OMG! The Japs are a totally different culture than us, they're buying up our country, and killing our slutty chicks! What can be done against this peril?"
Three words, biatch: SEAN FUCKING CONNERY.
(and Wesley Snipes)
And Tia Carrere - don't forget Tia!
Connery's terrible Japanese accent single-handedly wiped out Japan.
Something about American culture makes certain people always feel uneasy--unless they think we're teetering on the edge of some foreign menace.
I hate to say it but there seems to be some racist aspects to this too--whether it was the Japanese in the '80s or the Chinese now, it's..
It's the same stereotype as Fu Manchu* and the "yellow menace". They're trying to take over the world--and they're smarter than us, and they work harder than us, and they're gonna succeed unless we defeat them or become just like them. ...but the free traders and the capitalists and big business won't let us!
It wasn't that long ago that Most Favored Nation status for China used to be debated all the time--and it's always been the same story.
My grandfather was a missionary's kid in Shanghai way back in the early part of the 20th century. I remember him telling me what Americans thought of Chinese people back then, and it hasn't changed much! We've projected that Fu Manchu character onto those people for so long, I'm starting to wonder if they believe it themselves...
We work harder than everybody else and we're smarter than everybody else--so we're destined to take over the world!
It doesn't work that way, and that weird perception's been off for a long, long time.
*I didn't mean the awesome stoner band takin' over the world, but it would be a lot cooler if I did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zko7pBeHkk
"For some perspective, let's look at what happened over the past twenty years after the Japanese bubble burst in 1990. (Americans got to enjoy both the internet and housing bubbles over that period.)"
This begs the questions: What will the next bubble be, and since the US can't compete on manufacturing, how will we recover economically?
Can't compete? No worries - we'll make it up with volume!
We'll pummel the rest of the world in manufacturing once the dinosaur unions are busted.
Two things:
1) Surely we're hitting "Peak Bubble" soon, so bubbles will start to abate and then be used up - so when do we start getting "Peak Bubble" analysis?
2) From the Detroit News' Politics blog comments, I am officially introducing to Reason my second-favorite "Translating from the spoken to the written word is HARD"-ism -
"they have a long road to tow", [sic]
That's second to the evergreen "tow the lion" right now, but give it time.
We Mexicans call this "hacer caravana con sombrero ajeno," which translates to "taking a bow with someone else's hat," or "taking credit for someone else's shit."
Trust me, no one will ever want to take credit for yours.
Bad Max! Look what you did on the carpet! Bad boy!
ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!
Mexicans use the same word for shit and hat? Maybe Lonewacko was right after all.
"Instead of directing the economy from the top down, industrial planners are largely trying to claim credit for parades that have already taken off."
It would be interesting to press some of the "Let's emulate China, Inc." cheerleaders on specifics.
In what way--specifically--would they like to emulate China, Inc.?
Do they want to abolish all independent unions?
Do they want to rid America of environmental regulation--to China, Inc levels anyway?
Do they want to crank the minimum wage down to less than $1 a day?
In what way--specifically--do they want to emulate China, Inc.?
Fact is, they're probably just fishing for an argument that shows economies can grow fast despite government involvement...
...but the people here in the US that are arguing for more government involvement? They aren't advocating for government policies that make economies grow. Certainly not for the policies that have helped China grow.
"Communism is the inevitable destiny of mankind"
- The Soviet Union implodes
"The future belongs to the Japanese"
- Japan's bubble bursts
"China will soon have the world's leading economy"
- ????
Some people just don't like the US very much.
Including a sizable minority within the US.
Including POTUS.
"China will soon have the world's leading economy"
- ????
If China looks anything like Japan after japan's bubble burst I would call that the biggest moral success of humanity of the 20th and 21rst century or at least 2nd place behind the green revolution.
Remember when I said China is an example of libertarian dictatorship.
Good times.
Remember when the Japs were going to close that factory in Pennsylvania if the American workers couldn't produce 15,000 cars in one month. We showed them!
That was awesome.
Gedde Watanabe!
I rike you. You makea me raugh.
"Today not good day to see boss, man.
He between a lock and a hard on."
We would rike to aporogize for saying arr Americans are fat and razy. Some are fat...and some are razy.
You are confusing a movie with reality.
Step 1, the "Japan" step: bomb everything east of the Mississippi to rubble.
Step 2, the "China" step: starve the farmers in the upper Midwest and California's Central Valley; put in price control (not "controls", just one): everything sells for $29.94.
After discontinuing these policies, the US will grow fantastically from a much smaller base.
I'd go into detail, but I'm busy hitting myself in the head with a hammer, because I haven't gotten to the "feels so good" part yet.
Caterpillar to Issue Yuan-Denominated Bond
I need a good laugh -- I'd love to see something that Robert "I'm a moron" Reich wrote about economics back in the 80s. Hell, the crap he wrote yesterday is chuckle-worthy.
If liberalizing trade policy is such a panacea, then why was it that Japan's crash was not alleviated (and only got worse) after the Uruguay Round?
And if you want to see some good ol' fashion free trade in action, look at what happened to Thailand's garlic and other agricultural goods' farmers when Thailand opened up trade there with China. Devastated the industry in Thailand, putting thousands out of work.
Free trade is mainly beneficial to corporations, not small businesses or avergage workers.
Except for average workers who want to pay less for imported goods or average workers who produce something for export.
Given our current unemployment rate, that pool of average workers in a position to pay anything at all for for imported goods appears to be rapidly shrinking.
The marginal difference in prices doesn't make up for whole domestic industries destroyed, with thousands thrown out of work.
What about those thrown out of work in other countries because high tariffs make them uncompetitive? Or do they not count because they're furreners?
"do they not count because they're furreners?"
Yes, they do not count because they are foreigners. US politicians are elected to serve the interests of US citizens, not the citizens of other countries. Make no mistake, the leaders and citizens of other countries would view as mentally ill any American who thinks that the US government should implement policy which is harmful to the US, but beneficial to other countries.
I agree that the Sinophiles are probably unjustified, but it would be the height of hubris to assume that because a couple of seemingly formidable competitors to US dominance have fallen by the wayside in the past, that they will do so forever more. We are not as infallible as some think.
No, certainly. If we want to remain dominant, we have to keep taking free stuff when it is given to us. We also have to lessen the BS regulations on business in this country.
BS Regulations? You mean the ones regarding clean air and water, for example?
Especially those. They're all BS, but especially those ones.
You Ameweekans srooo racist. Just because Ima Chineese no mean I beeld rairoads and walls all time. Wairr that ees BURRRSHHITT! I'm not a sterotype k? I eat a wice and dwive a rear swow just rike de rest of YOU!!
Take him to Detroit!
I don't understand why people are concentrating so much on China. If there is any real competitive threat, I would suggest it comes from the more free society found in India. While it still is mired in much bureaucracy, if the world's largest democracy gets it act together it will surpass China with its service economy expertise vs. the manufacturing prowess in China. I don't think there is any reason to stoke the fears of the xenophobics, but India will likely be a much stronger competitor and continue to "terk er jerbs." Hopefully this will help push statist politicians into realizing we need a freer economy to compete rather than push them further into protectionist holes for another Great Depression. In short, I'm afraid I'll be too old and lazy too move my shit once it hits the fan.
"In short, I'm afraid I'll be too old and lazy too move my shit once it hits the fan."
Only an idiot would wait that long. You are a Jew, and it's 1932: See the ugly coming and make the move now. If you wait until 1939, its too late.
If there is any real competitive threat
The point is when it comes to trade the only competitive threat is the threat to government and its sycophants.
Companies and workers and societies have only everything to gain with open exchange of goods, services and ideas, and nothing to lose.
if the world's largest democracy gets it act together it will surpass China with its service economy expertise vs. the manufacturing prowess in China.
We do not have a service economy...we have a service job market.
We produce more goods then we ever have and there has been no slacking in its growth. What has changed is that we need very few workers to produce the massive amount of goods that we produce today...far less then we use to need in the past.
India has freed up a few sectors of its economy, but it is still very interventionist, and (IIRC) even has a fairly sizable Marxist bloc in its Congress.
Once they stop being obsessed with buttock augmentation, Brazil could be a competitor due to their much freer market economy.
Instead of directing the economy from the top down, industrial planners are largely trying to claim credit for parades that have already taken off.
This is largley the untild story of China's gains. From land use to market reforms all came from the bottom up. It was the poeple who defied government to create this change...all the government did was not kill and imprison everyone and instead let it happen.
Gratz all mighty Chinese bureaucracy of genius....you did not kill and imprison your own poeple when they tried to improve their own lives...or to be more precise you did not kill and imprison your own poeple as much as you could have.
Go and pat yourself on the back for that one.
What you're ignoring is that those free market reforms apply mostly to internal trade and exports. Duties and taxes on imports are some of the stiffest in the world.
IIRC, that was also the strategy our founders used in the fledgling US to protect nascent industries. This was also how they funded the government - forcing foreigners to absorb the cost of it rather than citizens.
The point here, as Milton Friedman would tell you, is that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, you can purchase foreign goods more cheaply, but you'll pay for that with higher unemployment. Not to mention the loss of self-sufficiency, industrial infrastructure, and expertise. None of which you'll miss when all is at peace in the world, but might come in handy if a trading partner such as China decides to get nasty.
Your trading partners are much more likely to get nasty if you put up trade barriers against them.
This was also how they funded the government - forcing foreigners to absorb the cost of it rather than citizens.
Uh, no. Citizens absorb the cost by either buying foreign goods with tariff added to the price, or by paying more for domestic goods than they would have had to pay for foreign ones.
Your trading partners are much more likely to get nasty if you put up trade barriers against them.
History is full of examples of our trading partners getting nasty for reasons entirely unrelated to trade. Are you saying we didn't have trading relationships with Germany and Italy prior to WWII? Was that war caused by trade barriers? And if we'd been in the same position with Germany that we are with China, what do you think the outcome of that little skirmish would have been?
Citizens absorb the cost by either buying foreign goods with tariff added to the price, or by paying more for domestic goods than they would have had to pay for foreign ones.
If citizens are going to be eating the bill in either case, is it more advantageous for them to eat it in a way that bolsters their domestic industries, or ways that bolster foreign industries?
From Gary North:
"You would think that conservatives, not trusting bureaucrats, would reject the idea that government bureaucrats who possess the power of the gun are not reliable people in the realm of economic planning. Yet what I have found for over 50 years is that in certain limited areas, the logic of freedom, meaning the logic of free trade, is not believed by people who say that they do believe in these principles. They accept arguments in favor of free trade as long as the trade takes place inside national borders. But as soon as they get to the border between two countries, they abandon any commitment to the logic of free trade. This has persuaded me that conservatives do not really understand the logic of free trade."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north911.html
They accept arguments in favor of free trade as long as the trade takes place inside national borders. But as soon as they get to the border between two countries, they abandon any commitment to the logic of free trade. This has persuaded me that conservatives do not really understand the logic of free trade."
Hypothetical situation: if a private entrepreneur wanted to sell biological and nuclear weapons to North Korea, what libertarian reason could be offered to prevent it? Obviously, the weapons are the entrepreneur's property, the sale would benefit the US economy, and, of course, the transaction would be voluntary on the part of all parties. Given that libertarianism doesn't recognize the right of sovereign nations to protect themselves by restricting individual rights, it doesn't offer much recourse in such a situation, does it?
It's not conservative's fault if libertarians are too stupid to understand there can be some very important distinctions between domestic and international trade.
I'm not a fan of government any more than most libertarians are, but I do recognize it performs some legitimate functions. Like preventing libertarians from fucking the country up for the rest of us.
Biological weapons and Nuclear devices are hardly market goods; the only entities that demand them are governments and terrorists. Which means that this is not a Free Trade Issue. An entrepreneur doesn't "just happen" to have a cache of biological and nuclear weapons, anyway; he probably contracted with some government to produce them. And it's not a good idea to antagonize your best customer (most likely the U.S. Gov't, or some military alliance like NATO) by selling to one of the customer's worst enemies.
Also, this:
http://www.thefreemanonline.or.....ree-trade/
"Protectionism may indeed preserve specific American jobs, but it often does so at the expense of other American jobs. This is particularly evident when the protected good is used as a factor of production here. For example, when the domestic steel industry received tariff protection from lower-priced imports in the 1980s and in 2002?03, many more American jobs were lost in steel-consuming industries than were saved in the steel-producing companies."
What happens when your foreign supplier cuts off your supply of a vital commodity, and you have no alternative domestic source?
See "OPEC oil embargo of the 1970's" for your answer.
I'll happily accept that protectionism can cost jobs. But not as many as having your economy grind to a halt altogether because your foreign supplier decides to play hardball by withholding a vital commodity you no longer have the domestic infrastructure and expertise to produce yourselves.
I have no problem with the idea that free trade is a good thing as a general principle. However, my definition of "general principle" does not include hitting the gas when you're clearly heading over a cliff.
*What happens when your foreign supplier cuts off your supply of a vital commodity, and you have no alternative domestic source?*
Generally, in the short run, prices rise sharply, and people seek alternative resources and goods to fill the place of the more expensive commodity. In the long run, technologies are developed to either make better use of each unit of the commodity, or make the commodity outdated altogether.
Typical scare-mongering scenario that is not likely to happen. China isn't the only supplier of oil, anyway. OPEC's oil embargo in the 1970's would have been barely noticed but for stupid FedGov policies to exacerbate the problem--American oil companies would be more than happy to make up the difference. Oil seems to be less scarce than commonly thought, since old "depleted" oil wells have been discovered to contain oil again.
Or consider the "rare earth metals" that China is "pulling from the market". There's an article on this very site that details what's up with that.
What about China? In 1990, its per capita GDP stood at $470 and is now $2,800. It would take almost 30 more years of the Chinese economy growing at a 10 percent annual rate for its per capita income to reach the current U.S. level.
Ron -- In an otherwise excellent piece, I think you're a bit off here. The PPP GDP per capita is about twice that, according to most sources.
China's still very poor, but they're not THAT poor.
Your overall point is a very good one though -- China is only growing because they've gone from Nork levels of dysfunction to something half as productive as Mexico (per capita). The limits to which a corrupt, repressive, autocratic state can prosper will be reached long before they reach anything like Taiwanese or South Korean ($27K) prosperity.
65 REPLIES and NO ONE including the Author touch on WHY JAPAN got stuck in its lost decade... Plaza Accord... Anyone???
after the USA screwed Japan over... getting them to revalue the Yen
Japan did do something it INVESTED IN CHINA....
plus anyone here really think China is going to be dumb enough to revalue their YUAN overnight??
Why are you trying to DO SEX TO ME like I was Mrs. 0bama?
btw no one expects the average Chinese to reach the standard of living an American... what people should be expecting is how low the average American standard of living will go...
China's giant economic sway
U.S. lawmakers threaten to punish Beijing for keeping the value of its currency artificially low. But guess who would win in a trade war?
By Eric J. Weiner
October 6, 2010
Can anyone talk to China anymore?
It's an increasingly important question for the United States and the rest of the world to ponder as the emerging giant asserts itself globally.
The House voted overwhelmingly last week to give President Obama sweeping authority to impose steep tariffs on Chinese imports. The move was aimed at retaliating against Beijing's monetary policy, which essentially keeps the value of the nation's currency artificially low so Chinese manufacturers can dump cheap exports on developed economies.
Whether the Senate will go along with the plan is still open to debate. But it's probably more pertinent to ask exactly what China would do if the U.S. actually did slap harsh tariffs on its goods? Based on China's recent behavior, any rash moves along those lines could trigger a deeply bitter reaction and possibly an outright trade war that, frighteningly, the U.S. would not win.
Consider that before the president's appearance in front of the U.N. General Assembly in September he had a two-hour meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, in which he basically demanded that China stop manipulating its currency. China's response? Ho-hum. Precisely how much money do you owe us again?
Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, Japanese manufacturing companies suddenly discovered that they'd been cut off from the rare earth minerals that they require to make high-tech products such as computers and cellphones as well as energy-efficient items like wind turbines and hybrid cars. What happened to Japan's rare earth imports? According to the Japanese government, China, which controls 93% of the global rare earth supply, decided to block shipments to Japan to score points in a diplomatic dispute. A few weeks earlier a Chinese fishing boat in Japanese waters crashed into a couple of Japanese coast guard ships. Japan seized the boat and arrested the captain. In response, China promptly detained four Japanese employees of Fujita Corp. on suspicion of filming a restricted military area in northern China.
So Japan proposed an exchange: the fishing boat captain in return for the four arrested Japanese citizens. But Japanese government officials say China balked and then, in an awesome display of economic power, simply cut off its rare earth shipments to Japan. The Chinese government denied the accusations, but true or not, Japan suddenly found itself in an unwanted trade war with its biggest trading partner. Through the first half of this year alone, China had bought $20 billion of Japanese government bonds and Chinese companies had invested roughly $120 million in Japanese businesses. This provided a needed boost to Japan's sagging economy.
Sensing the coming heat, the Japanese government acquiesced and freed the fishing boat captain on Sept. 24 with no strings attached. Only then did Beijing's rare earth minerals showdown ease. And last week, China released three of the Fujita employees it was holding. However, one Japanese citizen still remains in a Chinese prison cell, a bargaining chip for a later negotiation.
Why would China so brazenly challenge the world's economic powers like this? Because the country's leaders know what our leaders are only beginning to understand ? that China would probably win a global trade war.
In March 2009, the Pentagon for the first time held a series of economic war games exercises. The soldiers were Wall Street traders and executives, economists and academics. The weapons were stocks, bonds and currencies. The participants were divided into teams: the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, the European Union and so on. Then the teams were presented with different scenarios ? North Korea is imploding, a major global economy is melting down ? and told to do what was in their best interests. Our intelligence experts watched as the economic conflicts played out.
What the exercises showed was that the U.S. consistently lost to China in economic warfare. Part of the reason was that the U.S. could be easily distracted by expensive side conflicts that sapped our economic strength. But the more important reason was that China could inflict real pain on the U.S. without feeling it at home. For instance, by simply moving the maturities of some of its $850 billion in Treasury holdings from 90 days to 60 days, it could cause chaos in the U.S. stock markets. Or China could sell just a trickle of its U.S. financial assets and signal that it didn't have confidence in the U.S. economy, setting off a panic here.
The overall lesson from the exercise was that, for all of our saber-rattling, in our weakened economic state we have to be careful about poking this dragon. And what's more, everyone involved knows it.
So returning to the original question: Can anyone talk to China anymore? Sadly, for the time being it appears the answer is no.
Eric J. Weiner is a financial journalist and author of, most recently, "The Shadow Market."
So what's going on?
this...
China to be second richest by 2015
China is expected to overtake Japan as the second wealthiest country by 2015 on the back of rapid economic growth and strong domestic consumption, a report said Friday.
In its inaugural Global Wealth Report, Credit Suisse Research Institute predicts total wealth in China will more than double in five years, jumping 111 percent to 35 trillion US dollars.
"Ten years ago, China was the seventh largest country in global wealth. Since then, the country has accelerated past major European countries and is expected to overtake Japan in 2015," Giles Keating, Credit Suisse's head of research in private banking and asset management, told a news conference.
The United States currently has the largest share of wealth in the world, amounting to 27 percent of 195 trillion dollars. Japan comes in at second place with 11 percent and is trailed by China with eight percent, the report showed.
France, Italy, Germany and Britain come in at fourth place with six percent.
The report is based on data collected mid-2010 across more than 200 countries.
"The report confirms that Asia Pacific countries are driving the growth of the world's wealth.
Asia holds great potential for future growth," said Osama Abbasi, Credit Suisse's CEO Asia Pacific. China currently holds 16.5 trillion dollars, 35 percent more than France, the wealthiest European country, and almost five times that of India, according to the findings.
The report predicts consumption patterns in China will shift from necessities such as food and clothing to luxury items including recreation, education, health care and housing.
Wealth is also expected to surge in other emerging markets in the Asia Pacific region, especially India and Indonesia.
By 2015, India's wealth is expected to double to 6.4 trillion dollars while Indonesia's will grow from 1.8 trillion dollars to more than 3.0 trillion dollars.
The report also found there are more billionaires in the Asia Pacific region than in Europe.
Hello. My friend
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===
Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
thank you !!!
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===