Rebalancing from the US to Europe — evidence from shipping containers

by Brad Setser
February 25, 2008

Alas, the rebalancing in this case is a shift from exporting to the US to exporting to Europe — not a shift from export-led growth toward domestic-demand led growth.

Alan Beattie, in the FT.

Mark Page, research director at Drewry Shipping, a consultancy in London, says Asia-US container trade saw a big slowdown that began in the middle of 2007, with demand for the whole year perhaps only 2 per cent higher than in 2006. But ships were redeployed to the routes between Asia and Europe, north Africa and the Middle East, where container trade grew by around 20 per cent.

It is hard to fudge container data. The rise in shipping from Asia to Europe and the Middle East helps to explain how the Baltic freight index decoupled from the US economic cycle (UPDATE: NOTE COMMENT AT THE END). The Baltic dry index rose strongly for most of the year even as the US (non-oil) import growth slowed in 2007. Things obviously changed a bit in November.

It also explains why Europe is increasingly putting pressure on China to appreciate against the euro, not just the dollar — and why Europe seems to worry more about about the risk that it might attract too much investment from sovereign funds than to worry about the risk that it might attract too little.

What then would happen if European demand also falters? Beattie is not optimistic:

For the moment, Mr Page says, most shippers are confident that such growth will persist in Europe and the Middle East. But if demand from Europe does slow, Japan seems highly unlikely to take up the baton and global trade will suffer.

That would be true even if the big emerging markets do manage to generate enough domestic demand to absorb a lot more of the goods that they produce. Despite all the talk of an emerging Chinese middle class that could buy the goods coming out of its factories, its economic growth in recent years has instead owed much to its high trade surplus.

The last point is key. We don’t yet have good q1 data from China, but the early signs haven’t confirmed the q4 shift in the basis of Chinese growth toward domestic demand. And for 2007 as a whole there is little doubt that Chinese consumers failed to absorb the increase in Chinese production.

UPDATE: It turns out (per the comments) that the Baltic Dry Index measures the cost of shipping non-containerized freight (including a lot of commodities).   Consequently the argument I made above only works if there is some correlation between bulk shipping and container traffic.    Strong Chinese demand for coal and iron ore — another kind of decoupling — may offer a better explanation for the 2007 rise in the Baltic Dry Index than the surge in container traffic between China and Europe. 

Post a Comment51 Comments

  • Posted by Stormy

    Keith Brasher pointed out the shift a while ago.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/17/business/trade.php

    Your post is on target. China is not ready to take up the slack…it never thought of it as a problem. Well, we are passing the baton to Europe….and it is not going to be happy.

    Trade has become lopsided. China cannot be the world’s factory alone. It is finally a no-win game.

    Ultimately, it will throttle the growth of a middle class in China. If Europe cannot absorb the exports, then there will be pressure to lower costs in the factories producing the goods…wages in those factories will not grow. The only option is to replace human workers with more mechanization. Then what happens to the workers…who right now cannot buy the goods they produce?

    By the way, I was intrigued to discover that Canada has a rapidly rising trade deficit with China. Oh well.

  • Posted by df

    Yup the chinese will be lucky and ought to be happy if they can avoid revolution and civil war.

    They re gonna feel the worst world depression BIG time.

  • Posted by df

    Canada is one of the rare oil exporters with a free floating currency.
    What happens to them should be happening to other oil exporters.

    But anyway as soon as demand stops being there in europe and chinese export related investment crashes, oil prices will probably go down. Barring a war in the middle east, even with the peak oil thing, oil prices should fall steadily once depression settles in.

    Just think of it : we ve had the first housing world wide boom in the history of humanity. a thing bigger that the tower of babel if you see what I mean.
    All this, alone, has needed tankers and tankers of oil.
    If housing construction fall 20 % world wide I think that alone should be enough to put pressure on oil prices.

    Construction is now starting to fall in europe, the trend moving to the east. How long till asia ends up building ? How long till oil exporting countries end up building ?
    Dunno. But it s coming.

  • Posted by df

    any one knows how big is the total debt/GDP ratio in China ? Anyone knows how it has moved in the last 10 years ?
    Has chinese growth relied on debt on top relying on exports ?

  • Posted by Peter

    Brad,

    IMHO, your knowledge about trade is not at the same expert level as your knowledge about FX movements.

    First of all, manufacturers in China don’t produce and wait for US or EU to “absorb”. They run zero inventory. ASUSTEK, for example, runs on “983″ – which means 98% orders received will be completed in 3 days. ( It used to be “955″, the change from “955″ to “983″ is so painful for the manufacturers it is beyond amateurs’ imagination.)

    Secondly, you are giving Beijing too much credit for China’s trade performance. Check this out – For the last 5 years in a row – no exception -, among the top 10 export manufacturers, only Huawei (ranked #4) is a Chinese company. Except Dell (Ranked #3), the rest are all Taiwanese. All of them are contract manufacturers engaged in fierce competition, doing supply-chain management for versatile production.

    Thirdly, both US and EU see what’s coming and have been dealing with the trade issues for a long time. The apparel, shoe, furniture, glass, steel, …etc, from China are all under quota or anti-dumping duties. Some of these measures are a bit funny. Say for example, the bicycle industry, there are over 3,000 + manufacturers in China, 800+ are involved in export, and they are dumping collectively – selling below cost – … for what ???? Of course, none make enough money to hire expensive lawyers to contest court ruling and that’s it.

    Brad, look closely at the break-down of the Chinese export to the US and EU closely. 45% + are electronics. (lap top computers, ipod, digital cameras, LCD TV,..etc), China is involved in the assembly process. Even if somehow we force all these jobs out of China, do you really believe the assembly jobs are practical in the US or EU? And so are apparel (18%) – sewing jobs, toys, shoes, bicycles, .. Brad, pls read the best-seller ” Who moved my cheese”

  • Posted by DF

    found this here
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FK12Ad05.html

    Brad have a look, it s old and fun for this reason, but there s a nice cycle graph.

    And even the consumption side of the economy could be heading for trouble. Growing indebtedness of the wealthiest segment of the Chinese society, in the face of rising prices, could crimp demand. “The news on slowing demand is accompanied by disturbing accounts on debt levels in some Chinese cities. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences just reported the household debt to disposable income ratio at 155% for Shanghai, 122% for Beijing, 95% for Qingdao, 91% for Hangzhou, 85% for Shenzhen, 79% for Ningbo, and 44% for Tianjin. Five years ago, household debt was virtually zero. China’s household debt has experienced the most rapid rise the world has ever seen,” according to Morgan’s Andy Xie.

    same information here
    http://www.chinatoday.com.cn/English/e2005/e200508/n8.htm

    Finally anyone knows how sound the chinese banks are ?
    Back in 2002 you could read this :
    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_47/b3809164.htm
    Has the problem been solved ?
    I bet not It got buried in the sand of a 10% or more yearly growth and existing bad loans have been replaced by more soon to be bad loans.

    So don t buy the savings argument. If chinese banks collapse because they will have lent money to households unable to repay (job loss) unwilling to repay (falling home prices), or to business unable to repay (falling exports) or unwilling to repay (bankrupcy), then the savings will be lost by those who saved …

  • Posted by df

    found this here
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FK12Ad05.html

    Brad have a look, it s old and fun for this reason, but there s a nice cycle graph.

    And even the consumption side of the economy could be heading for trouble. Growing indebtedness of the wealthiest segment of the Chinese society, in the face of rising prices, could crimp demand. “The news on slowing demand is accompanied by disturbing accounts on debt levels in some Chinese cities. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences just reported the household debt to disposable income ratio at 155% for Shanghai, 122% for Beijing, 95% for Qingdao, 91% for Hangzhou, 85% for Shenzhen, 79% for Ningbo, and 44% for Tianjin. Five years ago, household debt was virtually zero. China’s household debt has experienced the most rapid rise the world has ever seen,” according to Morgan’s Andy Xie.

    same information here
    http://www.chinatoday.com.cn/English/e2005/e200508/n8.htm

    Finally anyone knows how sound the chinese banks are ?
    Back in 2002 you could read this :
    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_47/b3809164.htm
    Has the problem been solved ?
    I bet not It got buried in the sand of a 10% or more yearly growth and existing bad loans have been replaced by more soon to be bad loans.

    So don t buy the savings argument. If chinese banks collapse because they will have lent money to households unable to repay (job loss) unwilling to repay (falling home prices), or to business unable to repay (falling exports) or unwilling to repay (bankrupcy), then the savings will be lost by those who saved …

    Peter, they may own 0 stock, but they certainly do not have 0% investment. So if US and european markets fall, so will chinese investment, faster than chinese exports.

  • Posted by RebelEconomist

    Here we go again…..the lump of consumption fallacy. It is not necessarily a problem if China is the world’s factory, and runs a trade surplus with every other country, as long as the rest of the world is investing more to keep its savings at the optimum level. Investment in machines is fine too, as long as the “workers” own a large enough share of the capital that they earn a livable income. It is best for the world as a whole if the investment is done where it is most productive, and that is not necessarily in China. The biggest problem is, as so often, political: how to explain to the people in the rest of the world what the rise of China etc means and how to get them to use the resource inflows wisely rather than blowing them on excess consumption.

  • Posted by Anonymous

    everyone’s betting on Eastern Europe’s rapidly growing lending market:

    “Allied Irish Banks PLC, Ireland’s largest bank, has agreed to buy a minority stake in Bulgarian-American Credit Bank AD for €216 million… The fund is a private U.S. corporation established in 1991 under legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress to promote the development and expansion of Bulgaria’s economy. The Bulgarian-American bank was established in 1996 and listed on the Bulgarian Stock Exchange in March 2006… Allied Irish became the second Western European bank to buy into Bulgaria’s rapidly growing lending market after the Balkan country joined the EU in January 2007…” http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/22/business/EU-FIN-Bulgaria-Allied-Irish.php

    “…This is the Irish lender’s second acquisition in eastern Europe…” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aT_YF2pOV7.U

    “…When it comes to fashion brands… “Made in Spain” and “Made in Italy” have a certain cachet, but this may be waning… By 2009, 60% of the world’s luxury brand names will have their products made [in China]…” http://www.namedevelopment.com/blog/archives/2007/04/does_being_made.html

  • Posted by Anonymous

    are economists “workers”?

  • Posted by Peter

    df,

    I see what you are getting at. Officially, the Chinese debt/GDP ratio is at 30%, about constant. But the real picture is much more complex. Your intuition is brilliant, the Chinese do have a debt problem, but the worst time has passed. All in all, the risk exposure in Chinese economy doesn’t look pretty, but it is still better than G7, IMHO.

  • Posted by Anonymous

    “China’s stock market regulator has warned companies against making big issues of new shares to raise funds. The announcement was carried on the front page of many newspapers and came a day after share prices dropped to a seven-month low… “Companies by no means should engage in malicious money-grabbing…” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7264458.stm

  • Posted by df

    rebel, hi, long time not read you. I don t get your point.
    Mine has not changed. the total debt/GDP ratio has risen in all countries of the world and needs to fall. It d be better if it fell through inflationist policies, but those will be politically hard to adopt, and they will only mitigate the cost.
    As for the US china saoudi arabia symbiotic relation, well, vendor financing will end internationaly just as it s ending nationaly.

    the positive part of the depression ahead of us is that it ll give us some time to manage the environmental issues and the political window to pass huge changes in financial market regulations, corporate control, banking regulations.

    I have a dream, i dream of a humanity deciding to put a max limit on the ratio of private debt to GDP, a humanity able to reduce the variation of the debt/GDP ratio.
    You may think it’s a lousy dream compared to the one of Martin Luther. Yet I think it would be one of the best thing that could happen to humanity : learn to refrain booms preemptively in order to avoid nasty busts.

  • Posted by Dave Chiang

    So China has revalued the yuan, thousands of factories in the Pearl River Delta export region are now permanently shutting down, but will those labor intensive industries ever be returning to the West? With a massive global labor surplus, Walmart and other US multinationals are already rushing to outsource from other 3rd world developing nations (ie. Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Cambodia, etc). Western Economist pundits are demanding China further revalue its currency based on the already outdated and faulty perception that soon all of the world’s factories will be situated in China. Under the current Neo-liberalism globalization regime, the Chinese are today also losing millions of manufacturing export jobs. – DC

    Rising costs close thousands of China factories
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23273438-36375,00.html

    CHINA’S Pearl River Delta – the southern coastal area that in the past two decades has become the world’s factory floor for low-end goods — is losing thousands of factories.

    The Federation of Hong Kong Industries estimates 10 per cent of the 60,000 to 70,000 Hong Kong-owned factories in the delta region will close this year – likely the highest rate of closures in 20 years, deputy chairman Stanley Lau says.

    In the past year, more than 1000 shoe factories and related suppliers have closed in Guangdong. In some cases, Walmart is also turning to poorer countries with lower wage levels. That means new investment and assembly-line jobs in countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh.

  • Posted by Anonymous

    “…Sotheby’s sold just $2.9m worth of modern, Chinese art through its Hong Kong office in 2004, but that figure rose to $69.9m last year. And the profile of those buying the art has changed: in 2004 it was 80% foreigners, but now… 80% are from China… “I think some of them should step back and think about what they are doing, rather than churning out things for the market,”…” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7263125.stm

  • Posted by Peter

    DC -

    I agree with you about the low-end jobs never to return to the US or EU, but the factories closing in the Pearl river delta region is mostly a Chinese government-planned initiative, announced more than a year ago.

  • Posted by RebelEconomist

    df,

    Net debt is zero – all debt is someone else’s asset. The only way that the world can collectively save for the future is by investment. If it suits China to save with the rest of the world, then they are the price (interest rate) taker, and are presenting the rest of the world with an opportunity (low interest rates), if only the rest of the world can organise themselves to take it.

    I am totally against an inflationary bailout. All bailouts run the risk of moral hazard, but inflationary bailouts are such a blunt instrument that they cause widespread collateral damage.

    The two points are linked. To take advantage of China’s saving prudently, the rest of the world needs to invest, not consume, the resource inflows. If they repudiate the debt they owe, then capital will no longer flow so freely. And, as I have said before, the US cannot expect China to respect its intellectual property rights if it does not respect China’s financial claims.

  • Posted by Peter

    Rebel -

    Good point. Just like Brad, your world seemed to be too perfect and goes against human instinct.

    Anyway, we (the whole world) are too far down the road to go back and recover. The Chinese can’t avoid an eventuality of huge financial loss, the rest of the world can’t avoid a huge sinicization that will push China to the center stage, like it or not.

  • Posted by Anonymous

    “…Growth in card transactions… has historically held up well, even when the economy and consumer spending slows.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/business/26visa.html?ref=business

    “…Visa… is strictly a processor of credit card payments. It does not extend credit to consumers… “Visa is just connecting the bank that issues the card to the consumer to the bank that the merchant uses to deposit its card receipts… It could be for four cents, or it could be for $4 million. They just get X number of pennies per transaction.”… Visa is the runaway market leader, with 65 percent of the share of card transactions worldwide…” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022500778.html

  • Posted by Anonymous

    “…Export sales from the U.S., the world’s largest shipper of the grain, are up 56%…” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aKwZrf5aHgfI&refer=canada

  • Posted by RebelEconomist

    If China suffers a loss on its reserves because the dollar depreciates despite its internal value being preserved, then in my opinion that is their hard luck. But depreciation driven by surprise inflation is another matter. There is no excuse for the US to cheat China; the Americans are still far, far richer. It is just a question of having the political will to consume less to allow the debt to be serviced.

  • Posted by DC

    Here comes Bernanke’s Inflationary Bailout with Helicopter money fresh off the printing press:

    US Wholesale Inflation highest in 26 years
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/23349379

    Inflation at the wholesale level jumped 1 percent in January on rising energy costs and posted the biggest 12-month gain in more than 26 years, a government report showed on Tuesday.

  • Posted by bsetser

    Peter –

    Please take a look at some of the IMF’s latest work on the composition of China’s trade. Their work — and the import data, which suggests imports haven’t kept up with exports — suggest rising Chinese value added, as more components are made in China. That isn’t inevitable.

    and my read of the last five years is that the rise in china’s exprots to europe that followed the rmb’s depreciation against the euro suggests that Chinese exports to respond to the exchange rate. certainly in areas like auto parts/ aircraft parts and the like (white goods, furniture) China competes with the US and europe.

    if some production moves elsewhere — particularly to countries that have a higher propensity to consume/ import — the overall result is more demand and a smaller Asian surplus.

    Finally, I don’t think it makes sense to differentiate between Chinese and foreign owned production; what matters is china’s total value-added.

    DC — the available evidence (see my post on the uS trade data) suggests that China is gaining overall market share (its share of total us non-oil imports and all imports from Asia is rising).

  • Posted by Dave Chiang

    DC — the available evidence (see my post on the uS trade data) suggests that China is gaining overall market share (its share of total us non-oil imports and all imports from Asia is rising).

    Those are likely previous market share statistics from 2006-2007. As the largest retailer in the US, Walmart Corporation announced for 2008 that they will not be increasing imports from China, but will be looking to outsource from other lower cost nations. While strolling the aisles at Walmart the other day, I notice that alot more of their clothing merchandise is increasingly sourced from Latin America and Southwest Asia. Globalization means that US multinationals can almost instantly outsource to whereever labor wages are lowest.

  • Posted by df

    rebel writing “net debt is 0″ and being satisfied with that is utterly stupid.

    100 men produce for their own consumption, save time energy and grain, invest them in their own field to increase production.

    That is VERY different from 50 men borrowing from 50 others the energy and grain (or money) and investing it and then repaying the stuff borrowed with interests.
    It is different even though in both cases the money owed minus the money claims are equal to 0.

    Wether you like it or not, financial intermediation surely helps to improve allocation of investment … until debt excesses then lead to misallocation.

    We ve seen a wealthy minority being happy to lend money to the majority at home rather than raise wages,and a poor majority in asia being happy to lend money to a wealthy consuming minority in the west rather than raise its currency and balance its trade. All this has lead to major misallocations of capital and a looming debt deflation crisis with under consumption creating major havoc for companies (especially discretionary spending) and bankrupties breaking the financial system.

    It is to late for the chinese money to be wisely invested in the USA and China would not have lent that much money in the first place if it had been invested in the right places (simply because if it had, trade would have been more balanced). The money has already been invested in too big houses; too big pools, too big cars, too much plastic surgery, too much university tuition, military expenditure and this even though cars, houses, plastic surgery and human capital can be and have been wise investments in the past.

    The US will not repay china in full money even though they are richer than the chinese and China has known it for long, of course China will probably not respect patents, it never has fully, and the west has known it for long.

    as regard excesses in finance, moral hazard is what has happened and what may happen in 50 to 80 years, it is either too late or too early to worry about it. Where were those caring about moral hasards when the finance industry was deregulated in the 80′s ?
    the problem is not : gee if people know they can lend recklessly and be bailed out, they will do it again (in 50 years).
    The problemis : how come it has been allowed to lend recklessly in the first place ?
    What passed in the mind of legislators, police, judges that all those financial “innovations” were suddenly allowed, with the criminals implementing them not put into jail ?
    I say bail all banks, and put the legislators in jail if you need to find culprits.

    Now the damage is done. The investments have been misallocated. It s time to mop up. If you prefer debt deflation suits you. But pain is not a necessity. Just so you know.
    Inflationary bail outs are blunt yet they are the only I ve seen work in the past crisis, they usually come up in war time after a debt deflation period. I just wish we could skip debt deflation and war if that s not asking too much.

    DC manufacturing jobs in China can move to eastern europe northern africa because of higher transport costs, higher import taxes (call them carbon tax), they could return to western europe if need be (war), but anyway that is not the problem. Nobody is asking for the same jobs to be sent back, just for trade to be balanced and some ask for less trade growth (because its hurting the environment and reduces labor power in the west).

    Please note that western economists also ask vietnam and the rest to reevalue their currency. In fact western economists, no, european economists, ask for balanced trade, end of the dollar as a global currency, emission of a global currency under the UNO.
    When China starts to have a commercial deficit, it ll get the right to complain about the valuation of its currency. Same for Japan, india, saoudi arabia and the rest.

  • Posted by Guest

    http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/GuestCommentaryHome
    Reminiscent of the 1920s, reckless ‘innovation’ in debt instruments, particularly in the last 5 years, stretched the capacity of our financial system to the point that it broke in the summer of 2007. It can’t generate credit anymore; certainly not in the copious quantities our economy needs to keep growing.

    The Fed is powerless to prevent the unwinding of the long credit cycle that has been building, with spurts and pauses, for 75 years. A classic debt deflation is upon us. There is no avoiding the consequences: economic activity will shrink, incomes and employment will fall, and asset values will deflate for the next several years. Recovery will begin only when asset prices, especially for houses, have been restored to an adequate degree of affordability … probably not before 2010. It would seem that we learned absolutely nothing from Japan’s experience of the last two decades and are therefore condemned to repeat it.

  • Posted by df

    If 100 people invest 50 % of their revenue in order to increase their production, that is a risk. There s a chance they increase their revenue next year. There s also a chance they could be exhausting a natural ressource, copying each other until there s excess supply. This is called an investment boom.

    Debt is something different. some people lends money to another, on the hope to get it back later (with interest). The other either invests it, or spends it.
    Now : if the amount lent on overall rises compared to the amount produced on overall, there is a problem, even if each of the 100 people as a net debt of 0, even if all money is invested and none spent.
    Why ? Because as the percentage of revenue borrowed rises people get a free yearly boost in demand. In fact they create money.
    They expect that future demand, that money creation.
    So does inflation follow ? Well, depends what you call inflation ? With the right policies it so happens that inflation does happen only in assets (houses, land, factories, shops, patents, brands, stocks) and not in consumption goods. Since inflation is for most people the rise in consumption goods prices, then you can have more money through increased lending and no inflation.
    Lending is even made easier. Rising asset prices are falsely perceived as a reflection of expected profits, while in fact they are of course mainly the result of money creation through increased lending.

    But then at one point those 100 people start doubting the others will be able to repay them. They know that others will be able to repay only if they go on increasing their lending. Of course they d be happy if all debt were erased in one swift move of the pen. But what happens instead is that some stop to lend first, putting their would be borrowers in trouble. Some also stop to spend and borrow, putting people selling to them in trouble. and there debt deflation starts.

    Of course if on top of this debt bubble thing, you have major investment misallocations, and wealth inequality and net debt inequality … things are worse.

    for instance the 100 people could buy big homes big cars, big pools, even though there are rising oil prices and global warming concerns, they dish their sewing kits and forget to invest in infrastructures…
    For instance those owning lots of assets could be opposed to actions leading to a rise in consumption goods and wages since this would make them comparatively poorer.
    Also those having a positive net debt (lenders) could ask to be bailed out first, while those having a negative net debt (borrowers) could ask to be bailed out first.

    and so on.
    This is just to repeat. The debt GDP ratio matters, especially private debt to GDP ratio. It is the mother of all bubbles.
    Over the last 50 years that ratio has risen,this has caused money agregates to continuously rise faster than GDP in all countries. As a result prices have risin in differnt places. Consumption goods and wages when labor was strong (60′s and 70′s), assets in the 80′s and 00′s, now it s more commodities.
    Over the last 50 years private money creation (debt increases) has continuously outpaced public money creation (printing press, paper or electronic money sent by the central bank to the government).

    Now we know private money creation is coming to a halt. It s taking a while but we can see money agregates decelerating.

    The question is :
    do we want to let deflation happen ?
    Or do we want to compensate private money destruction by public money emission ?

    I personaly doubt it would be possible to engineer a huge inflation now, the commodity price boom is backed on the unsustanaible investment boom in asia, it ll be short lived. besides labor is week, there s a huge reserve army waiting to find jobs at the global minimum wage.

    But money authorities must jump in and print money as much as needed to compensate the private money destruction. It will probably not be enough. Especially since lots of regulation need to be reinstated to make most of present lending shemes illegal. But everything that can be done ought to be done.

    Just make bad lending illegal. Bankers and borrowers will never learn, even if not bailed out. You can not expect Joe the banker and joe the borrower to remember the lessons of the 20′s. yet you must expect this from the members of congress and the central banks. So moral hazard blabla is just blabla. Not bailing out people will just kill people, not teach them a lesson, and not one they can learn anyway, since if history is to teach us anything, the next huge debt bubble is in more than 30 years.
    We need a world constitution barring fiscal paradises putting strict regulations on banking and national institutions monitoring private debt agregates as indicators of booms and bust.

  • Posted by df

    sorry for long post. I like it though.

  • Posted by bsetser

    dc — they are based on the 2007 (jan -dec) trade data. China’s share of non-oil us imports rose in calendar 07, as imports from china grew faster than non-oil imports and imports from asia ex china.

  • Posted by Rich

    brad/peter-

    Chinese value added is up tremendously; particularly in electronics. Smart people learn how to design and engineer things over time and China is no different than Taiwan. Dell may be a big exporter but Taiwanese and Chinese designed motherboards and components are what goes into the case; has been so for years. These ‘high value’ design and engineering jobs are not in the West.

    These products are produced in the world’s most modern factories with low cost labor; not cheap assembly in a shoddy plant. We in the US continue to build law schools rather than invest in engineers or have any semblance of national industrial policy (think rebate checks rather than a solar panel on every roof that would employ the out of work construction workers AND lower our balance of payment deficit in oil).

    As for China’s massive investment profits will indeed be slim as EU and US demand goes down. I imagine the next downdraft with higher unemployment here could be the tipping point for real pain to be felt globally as a result.

    Lastly, I firmly believe the EU will become increasingly protectionist as they are faced with a huge onslaught of Asian manufactured product.

    @ Peter I agree with 933 manufacturing is very tough and requires incredible logistics. I think this goes against your own assembly argument. People who assemble eventually design – Taiwan is PROOF POSITIVE. China is there as well.

  • Posted by Anonymous

    “…Ford is pitching a buffet of buyout packages that are easily among the richest ever offered to factory workers, including one-time cash payments of $140,000…” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/business/26ford.html?ref=business

  • Posted by DC

    dc — they are based on the 2007 (jan -dec) trade data. China’s share of non-oil us imports rose in calendar 07, as imports from china grew faster than non-oil imports and imports from asia ex china.

    Imports from China to the US are a direct result of US multinational corporation outsourcing strategy for cheaper labor costs. Let me reiterate that if one want to equalize salaries on the basis of wages, since a Chinese engineer receives wage compensation one-tenth his US counterpart, almost no level revaluation of the Chinese yuan currency would satisfy Western critics.

    The Chinese themselves are sick and tired of being scapegoated by the same IMF Washington Consensus Economists who have devised the entire Neo-liberal globalization “race to the bottom” program. The Chinese economy evolves into higher value manufacturing, exports are diversifing from lower end textile and labor intensive production. In the near future, as a large continental economy, China’s economic growth will completely decouple from slumping exports to the faltering US Economy. The apex of China’s involvement in the US Walmart economy has passed.

  • Posted by Anonymous

    DC- again I am astounded how in one comment you say “The Chinese economy evolves into higher value manufacturing, exports are diversifing from lower end textile and labor intensive production. In the near future, as a large continental economy, China’s economic growth will completely decouple from slumping exports to the faltering US Economy.” But then further up you note that low margin shoe factories in the Pearl River Delta are closing because of higher labor costs. You then cite this as evidence that further RMB appreciation would be catastrophic. So which is it?

  • Posted by Anonymous

    “…US policymakers have woken up to their challenges, and when they have come up with – and are implementing – one of the biggest economic stimulus packages in modern history… Maybe the US is going to “decouple” from the rest…” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/623d1eae-e3c2-11dc-8799-0000779fd2ac.html

  • Posted by DC

    One more comment. The IMF and World Bank are de facto controlled by the US Treasury, which is de facto controlled by Wall Street money center banks. From phone records released under the Freedom of Information act, it can’t be just a coincidence that Secretary of Treasury Paulson and Fed Chairman Paulson are consulting exclusively non-stop with Citicorp’s Robert Rubin and other Hedge Fund managers. Doesn’t the US Economy also include other industrial sectors besides the narrow special economic interests of Robert Rubin’s Citicorp?

    If you want to point fingers for this incredible US financial mess, the problem isn’t found in Beijing. The Chinese yuan valuation issue is nothing but a canard for the serious issue of institutional special interest corruption in the US Treasury. For instance, why was Robert Rubin given a free pass from a criminal corruption probe given his deep personal involvement in the Enron fiasco? The trustees of Enron want to know with a $20 billion lawsuit filed against Citicorp and Robert Rubin.

  • Posted by DC

    “then further up you note that low margin shoe factories in the Pearl River Delta are closing because of higher labor costs. You then cite this as evidence that further RMB appreciation would be catastrophic. So which is it? ”

    For the Chinese low skilled workers losing their textile jobs, further RMB appreciation is a unmitigated disaster which no one in the Washington controlled IMF seems to care. Most of the low educated Chinese women from rural regions are not employable in other medium or high tech sectors of China’s economy. Like in most developing nations, China has a two-tiered society not only among its citizens, but between various coastal regions. Overall, China is rapidly evolving into a medium to high tech economy, but large numbers of lower educated citizens are being left behind. Unlike Japan or Korea, as a large continental economy, China isn’t as dependent on exports to the US. The Apex of China dependence on the US Economy has passed.

  • Posted by bdp1 Consulting Ltd

    Baltic Dry Index has nothing to do with container shipping.

    Barry

    It is hard to fudge container data. The rise in shipping from Asia to Europe and the Middle East helps to explain how the Baltic freight index decoupled from the US economic cycle. The Baltic dry index rose strongly for most of the year even as the US (non-oil) import growth slowed in 2007. Things obviously changed a bit in November.

  • Posted by Wilson

    Will some US banks go bust due to their exposure to CDO and SIV?

  • Posted by Wilson

    I lost alof of money in Enron before sue to corporate fraud. I am scared shitless by the fact that even the S&P is lying as suggested by rating a bond AAA when it is paying 14%.

    My close relative is stuck in a long position of a stock as her damned citibank banker totally lied about the risk of that invrestment instrument. Specifically the she now has to buy Merill Lynch, Morgan Stanleye etc in May 2009 at 2007′s price. Had I known this I would have never allowed it.

    I am helping her to rebalnce the portfolio and hedge risk by buying put options against these stocks to limit the loss, but what is scary is that even the S&P is lying now, so do you think Citibank and Merill will also lie?

    What to do to get out of it? Put option has time value and dont know when they will tell the truth about earnings.

  • Posted by bsetser

    bdp1 consulting — could you explain? if i got something wrong, i’ll correct it.

  • Posted by Anonymous

    “…the Baltic Exchange only looks at ships fitted to carry dry cargoes, such as iron ore, coal, corn, wheat and barley. Finished goods, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators, are moved more often by container ship, while oil is hauled by tanker…” http://www.thestreet.com/story/10401366/1/why-you-should-care-about-the-baltic-dry-index.html

  • Posted by Anonymous

    Wilson – read James Altucher

  • Posted by Peter

    Brad,

    I did read the IMF data about China’s trade. We all agree that China is producing more intermediate components, say, for the lap top computers. In your words, this doesn’t have to be necessarily the case. — I don’t agree. — And this is very important, because it goes into the core of your re-balance scenario. Let me illustrate my point using lap tops as an example:

    China started the lap top manufacturing in the assembly – and only assembly – jobs around 1998. Or, to be more precise, some Taiwanese lap top manufacturers moved their assembly operations into China. At that time, the top 5 lap top manufacturers are all Taiwanese, so you can see that this is not a Beijing’s design and the Taiwanese have no incentives to help Beijing. What happened next was that every one was straight-jacketed into the process that kept the industry evolving – the movement of the assembly jobs caused the supply chain to adapt and kept driving more and more high-end jobs into China. In other 3rd world countries, this may not necessarily be the case, but….. China is unique. One of the top 5 tried to keep the high-end jobs in Taiwan – and nearly bankrupted itself – lost 95% stock value and finally moved too. Today, the lap top manufacturing is ever more concentrated – Winner takes all – that within 1/2 hour drive from Shanghai, 2/3 of the world’s lap tops are manufactured. The force is so great that Samsung also moved its lap top manufacturing operation to Suzhou. Now you can’t accuse Korean companies to be unpatriotic money-first fat-cats …. and the industry is still keeping on evolving in the same direction ..

    Looking back, or even now, how can any one – including Beijing – break the chain of events? Either everything – including the assembly jobs – are kicked out of China – which obviously is unacceptable to Beijing, or the evolution of the supply chain will keep on driving more and more high-end lap top jobs into China,.. and hence the ever larger trade imbalances, at least as far as the lap top industry is concerned..

  • Posted by bsetser

    peter — my guess is that the economics of being patriotic would be different in the rmb was rising v a host of asian currencies, not falling v most of asia. take korea. in 05 in particular the won strengthened dramatically v the $ and the rmb. that might have had an impact on samsung. i would also note that the combination of rising indian wages and a stronger rupee seems to have put a dent in demand for indian outsourcing.

  • Posted by Indian Banker

    “i would also note that the combination of rising indian wages and a stronger rupee seems to have put a dent in demand for indian outsourcing. ”

    Brad- Would you pls provide some evidence for the same ? Is it S/W outsourcing that you are talking about ?

  • Posted by bsetser

    Indian banker –

    There have been a series of press stories in the US indicating that the appeal of outsourcing has fallen, and complaints on the indian side about the impact of the rising rupee. In terms of hard data, tho, i would need to do a bit of legwork. For goods exports, the evidence of a slowdown in indian export growth seems pretty good, tho the cause is as likely global and the rupee’s rise.

  • Posted by Peter

    Brad,
    Yes, good point. The other part in your re-balance scenario. If the RMB appreciated enough, we break the chain of events. But for china, – or for every one else involved – the dilemma is that there is no “middle way”. Either the RMB appreciate enough to force out the assembly operations, or nothing will change. Pls read my previous post again.
    This is the critical difference between the situation China is in today and Japan and Germany in the past. Japan can appreciate the Yen, gave up the low-end jobs and continue. China can drop the low-end jobs… with nothing left. This is the reason that cause such a head ache for everyone involved trying to find a solution. Believe me Brad, you, or Americans, are not the only ones concerned …

  • Posted by RebelEconomist

    df,

    Moral hazard has arisen much more frequently than every thirty years or more. I would say that similar crises of financial excess arose in 1987, the early 1990s, 1998 and 2000, and each time, the response was to lower interest rates. The result has been cumulative, double-sided macroeconomic moral hazard. Cumulative because the easing is prompted by the pace of decline, regardless of the level. Double-sided because, despite the Fed’s talk about “taking out insurance”, the premium is actually appropriated by diluting the cautious investors who put their money in floating rate debt, so in addition to rescuing the borrower, the remedy penalises prudence. This sequence has to stop somewhere – better here than Argentina.

    China lent money largely to the US government, not sub-prime borrowers. The government could have lent money to other countries by building their own reserves or SWF, or they could have invested it, in windfarms, railways, education etc. But they preferred to cut taxes, and leave it to the people to decide what to do. Collectively, Americans decided to consume. The US can have an internal argument about who was responsible for driving that consumption, and conclude that there should be some internal transfers to spread the burden of repayment (eg recovering bankers’ bonuses), but I think it would be wrong to short-change China. Not just because of the morality of a rich nation cheating a poor one, but because of the effect on international relations.

  • Posted by df

    rebel The problem has not been lowering interest rates it has been allowing financial innovation.
    Since 1980 financial “innovation” has been let free and rates have tended to go down.

    In any of the precedent occasions I would have saved the investors (probably not by lowering rates though) BUT I WOULD HAVE MADE ALL THOSE “INNOVATIONS” illegal and sent the financial leaders to jail.

    What comes every 30 years or so is a phase in a global debt bubble. Look at any debt graph from any country and you can see debt rising after 1980 and exploding after 1990.

    The idea that hiking rates is good because it ll punish us all for our sins … Gee. whatever the rate level if there s room left for herding, there will be herding. The subprime crisis is not mostly a pb of interest rates, it s a problem of stupid “innovations” (robbery) and promoting the hypocrit “ownership society”.

    Now that the bubble is over, the worse would be to do as if it would be possible to pay back the ridiculous amount of debt that has been borrowed and lent. Those amounts need to be forgotten, erased, buried in inflation, whatever. No economy can repay the amount of debt that now exist.
    Some countries have reduced federal (or national) government debt, I have yet to see an economy with stable or falling total debt levels (Germany recently ?).

    as far as the US and china are concerned.
    The US will repay its debt to all investors no matter what, yet in a weaker dollar. If the chinese are unhappy with that they should have asked for RMB denominated debt or spent the money. The US-China stuff is just a minor issue in the global debt bubble stuff anyway. Yet I must admit that since ultimately China are the ones who have fueled this bubble in the end, it is natural that they get hit too. They are no different from the mortgage lenders. They were repetedly told that they d be paid back in worthless dollars, they choose to invest. Well they must find it interesting anyway.

    DC my bet is China s trade is going to rebalance pretty soon and in a nasty way. We ll see then if china’s dependance on the world economy has been overevaluated.

  • Posted by RebelEconomist

    df,

    The problem with interest rates is that they have become politicised. Interest rates are not some kind of moral instrument; they are simply the price of borrowing money. If the risk of lending goes up, are you willing to lend at the same rate? Probably not. It is not morality; it is supply and demand.

    If you think that the problem has been financial innovation, why do you think that should China pay?

    Germany – exactly! I am fan of what Germany has done. They went into emu at an uncompetitive exchange rate, but by being realistic about what they could afford and what they could do well, the Germans have recovered their position. Angela Merkel can meet the Dalai Lama and tackle the Chinese about climate change etc, and they still buy German products, because they would be stupid not to.

  • Posted by df

    Germany has relied on the rest of the world to supply external demand. It s not great. It has a long tradition of low inflation and it has exported it.

    China must pay their part because they fueled the debt bubble.
    Interest rates are just one aspect determining the supply and demand of credit. At any given rate the type of regulation of the finance industry and the level of debt accumulated have a huge importance.
    Right now the debt is so high that even with negative real interest rates people will not borrow more. They ll just replace old debt by new one.

    Interest rates are always politicised because the regulation of the finance industry is.

    anyway …

Bad Behavior has blocked 6583 access attempts in the last 7 days.