The China Vortex

@GregoryLent on Twitter just pointed me to this article, A User’s Guide to 21st Century Economics, by Umair Haque which I recommend highly.

After reading this article, some questions which came to mind:

• Chinese companies traditionally have not been good at adding value. How well can they adjust to the new 21st century economic situation?
• Chinese companies have been spending much on acquiring steady supplies of raw commodities. How much are they thinking of what is needed for the 21st century? Will they continue to build a twentieth century economy modeled on the American model, which is going defunct rapidly, or will they build a new development model for the 21st century?
• The 21st century development model is reliant on individual human talent and creativity, and making it possible for them to succeed. How is China going to attract the best minds in the world to China in the 21st century?

On this blog, I have been a frequent critic of the view that China is a threat to the rest of the world as a rising superpower. Most of the time, these critics have a clear agenda to sell with regard to fear of China, or are journalists who have very little understanding of China. If the latter group, their articles are really rehashes of “If China were a rising superpower like US/Britain etc. this is what China would be plotting to do.” For someone who has never been to China and does not understand the country and people, the argument makes sense. But for someone who has been in China for some time, it’s ridiculous.

The reason for this is very simple. Running a country of 1.3 billion people is a very tough job, and this is something these China newby articles invariably overlook. In simple terms, the daily challenges are huge and are much bigger than the rulers of the US and UK have to deal with. For the most part, Chinese are not nearly as docile as Americans and Britons, and are much more “creative” about the ways they express their unhappiness. The knife hiding behind the smile or 笑裏藏刀 is a useful phrase to be aware of in business and politics in China.

In recent days a new theme has popped up, and that is the government incentives from the Chinese government are beginning to show positive results in the Chinese economy. Some of the articles are:

• Differences Between Chinese and US Economic Recoveries
• China’s Stimulus Plan Ignites Economy

The Chinese government has acted forcefully, much more so than western governments, in fighting the effects of this recession which has turned into a depression. Compared to the west, the Chinese government has been the model of efficiency.

Sources in Beijing have told me that the Chinese government has offered companies full salary subsidies for company positions. That is, they have offered to reimburse companies full salary for positions in companies, especially positions for new university graduates. I am not sure if this applies to SOEs or if it also extends to the private sector. I am not aware of the full details of how it is implemented, but it does have the ring of truth. This has created a favorable market for employers, as many companies routinely lay off 80-90% of students following the three-month probation period.

Coming back to the rising superpower theme, this serves as an excellent illustration of a major point of mine: to become a superpower, you really don’t need to have a plan for world domination. You only need to be the last man standing when everyone else has already collapsed.

It will be very interesting to find out how long China will stand? The Chinese government is running the distinct risk of using all its bullets too early, and not having any left if the depression continues over a prolonged period. If that happens, the only thing China can do is inflate its way out. Another article point out the risk of this approach:

• Is China Pulling An Alan Greenspan?

If the depression is long and this scenario plays out, then China will become a very short-lived superpower, and will only be standing a very short time before it collapses on top of the heap with the other former superpowers.

You only win when you can walk away after the battle. Otherwise it is just a pyhrric victory.

(Trouble is, pyhrric victory is a western term which does not an equivalent in Chinese.)

UPDATE Feb. 20, 2009: Knowledge@Wharton has an article about the possible ramifications of the surge in lending by Chinese banks.

My apologies for not having written for so long. I have been “otherwise pre-occupied” and have also been watching the first weeks of the Obama presidency and the accelerating unwinding of the financial markets.

The situation looks increasingly bleak. I hope you are prepared.

Readers know that I have been a critic of globalization in its present form. In this article, I will lay out for you how badly Americans have been fleeced by their own politicians, losing their own jobs, factories and any hope of a better future for themselves and their children. And all this has happened in a country with a supposedly free media, and where people can exercise greater free will than in China, where I am writing from now.

I’m going to keep this simple, but there are some numbers involved. Keep in mind that I’m not an accountant, but I do understand business. To make my illustration, I’m going to create a simplified fictional scenario.

OK, let’s suppose that there is a factory in Pennsylvania which employs 500 people to make widgets. This factory has been making widgets since 1955 and employs 500 people, who make an average income of $2,000 a month. This means that the monthly payroll is US$1 million a month, or US$12 million annually. Of course the factory owners and employees all pay taxes which go to the city, state and federal government.

Now, the owner goes to China and finds that he can go to China, and instead of paying his workers an average of US$2,000 every month, he can get Chinese workers at an average salary of US$200 a month. Their productivity is just as good as the American workers, but they cost only 1/10 the wages. His monthly payroll expenses fall from US$1 million a month to US$100,000 a month, and his annual China payroll becomes only $1.2 million. This means that he can afford to lower the price of his widgets, thus selling more widgets.

Moreover, in order to attract the investment, the local Chinese government is willing to give him cheap land and a tax holiday for several years. This means that his upfront investment costs are lowered drastically to only US$500,000 for land and factory. The business owner would be a fool to turn down such an opportunity, right?

So he goes back to Pennsylvania and begins transferring production to China, gradually laying off his Pennsylvania workers along the way. Now this is where things start getting wacky. As he lays off his workers, they go to the state government to collect unemployment, which for the sake of simplicity, we will say, runs about $400 per worker per week for six months. This cost is carried by the state government. Eventually all are laid off, and the state pays out a total of $5.2 million (400 * 26 * 500) for all the laid-off workers.

Now, our factory widget owner is happy, because thanks to globalization and WTO, not only has he lowered his costs drastically, but he can export all over the world duty-free, since WTO has regulations against import tariffs and barriers. He has more markets, and more market access. His investors are happy because they are making more because of lower costs and higher profit margins.

But what has happened in the US? More and more unskilled, then skilled, workers are losing their jobs. The state governments need to pay unemployment, and they need to tax the employers who remain in the state for corporate taxes to sustain the system. Meanwhile the tax base of factories which remain in the state shrinks while the number of unemployed grows. At the same time, there is a very large group of politicians who rail against taxes, so the states cannot raise taxes even though their tax base is shrinking and the number of unemployed is growing. Meanwhile, the number of people accessing free state services continues to grow.

Basically, this is what has been happening in the US over the past 15 years with globalization. If you think about it, it is amazing the US economy, with all the deficit spending over the past eight years, has not collapsed sooner! And mind you, we have not even talked about subprime mortgages and derivatives yet!

Now before WTO and globalization, there would have been import tariffs. If Chinese costs were so low (which they are), the US would at least have been able to impose some tariffs to bring costs closer to what they would cost in the US and thereby mitigating some of the difference, and bringing money into the US Treasury. China’s growth would have been slower, and probably healthier for China and the rest of the world.

Now there is talk in the US of a “Buy America” campaign. Too late folks! If the US raised tariffs now, it would trigger a protectionist trade war, one which the US is very poorly prepared to win, since it now has to look to China to bail it out of its current mess. In times like these, cash is king, and China has the cash.

Now, is this the fault of the Chinese? I would say no. The Chinese just took maximum advantage of a system which was given to them, and the Chinese government wanted to maximize exports to the US so that it could earn foreign exchange to fund China’s economic development.

Different American politicians and pundits have pedaled globalization to Americans as the panacea to all their ills. But what has happened in reality? Americans have lost their jobs, lost their homes because of the growing subprime and now prime mortgage crisis, and they do not have the skills which are needed for this new period we are entering. The companies are optimized for a world which no longer exists. Americans have lost their own future, and the futures of their children and maybe grandchildren. And most are completely unprepared for this new kind of globalization, which looks like it may very well bring the US standard of living to something more closely resembling the Chinese standard of living.

For your information, until very recently, the Chinese were dirt poor. They remember what it’s like, and even though they do not want to live that way again, they can roll back expenses to the minimum if it needed. Give you an example: there is now a movement among Chinese university students to spend 100 yuan (about US$15) a week. How many Americans can do that?

These are the times we are in for.

Saying that Americans were fleeced by charlatans and politicians on both sides of the aisle does not even begin to describe the situation. Just about the only thing they have left is their own internal organs. Already there are young women who are selling their eggs to make a living. And it will just get worse and worse.

Now does China export jobs? No, China exports Chinese. The country has too many people, and the government is encouraging them to go to Africa where many Chinese companies are investing in hard assets, otherwise known as commodities. Anyone who has lived in China can tell you that Chinese are great believers in hard assets.

So what can President Obama do? It doesn’t look like he can do very much. Collapsing sales and profits reports keep on coming down the pike, and have acquired a momentum all their own. It would be nice if we could take globalization out back and shoot it in the back of the head, but it’s too late. The cat’s out of the bag, and it’s not going back in.

That’s why I’m in China.

Now, why is it the US with its free press, tell the people what was really happening? Or were they just distracted by left-wing/right-wing pseudopolitics and red/blue arguments so much that they did not notice what was happening to them?

If you want another angle on this bleak picture, I’d recommend that you read Clusterfuck Nation.

In previous articles, I have voiced some of my criticisms and predictions re globalization here, here, here, and here. Unfortunately, it is becoming clearer by the day that globalization was largely a fraud where Americans could endlessly consume and Chinese factories could endlessly manufacture without any adherence to economic fundamentals and creating a false and bloated version of prosperity and rising living standards. The brilliant minds of Wall Street came up with “risk management strategies” (irony alert) so that derivatives could endlessly build a never-ending Ponzi scheme which would go on forever and ever.

We are now entering a very painful period of unwinding of what economist Niall Ferguson called “Chimerica”. Now, China and America are entering a dangerous period of deglobalization, where they have come to the realization that after the bubble pops and the deleveraging begins, their interests are really quite different. Instead of China and America being two sides of the same economic coin, they need to play or pander to their own constituencies. The blame game will begin.

And their native constituencies are confused, hurt and angry. But they are not nearly as angry now as they will be in the near future when they have figured out what has happened to their wealth. When that happens, there will be hell to pay, and there will be blood in the streets.

The reason for this is because the leveraging which occurred is simply too big and too complicated. Taking all the bad leveraging out of the system and replacing it with cash and credit liquidity is like trying to rebuild the engines of an aircraft in flight. It cannot be done. This means that there can only be a crash.

The bright side is that crashes can be managed. You can go into a death spiral which is impossible to pull out of, but a smart pilot will look for a stretch of land and try to glide in for a crash landing. So far, the political leadership worldwide is pursuing policies which more closely follow the former path of the death spiral. This is because everyone is acting in what they perceive in their own interests, instead of keeping their heads and thinking through what needs to be done. It is a deadly panic move.

The problem is that we are now entering a phase where the crisis has spread from subprime mortgages, to derivatives, and then on to currencies. In the beginning the patient suffered from a lack of credit liquidity (constipation), so the central banks are going to provide liquidity (the enema). This did not work, and the patient has become bloated. There is the very real chance that this will eventually cause runaway inflation (dysentery) and the patient will then die of dehydration. When this happens, the currency becomes worthless and society falls apart until a new dictator imposes his will on the society, as Hitler did at the end of the Weimar Republic in Germany. In China’s case, runaway inflation led to the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek’s loss of support in the cities, and directly contributed to the establishment of the People’s Republic.

Sounds really really really bad, doesn’t it? That’s because it is.

But there are survival and prosperity strategies. I will talk about them in 2009. But you will have to be really really tough.

One of the big problems with the present economic crisis is that we really do not know how big the problem is. We know that our problems have been caused by the creation, then over-leveraging of debt. But we don’t know how much debt was created, then sliced into derivatives multiple times which were then sold on to financial institutions all over the world.

But no one knows how much debt, then derivatives, were created by this whole process. That is the big elephant in the room which no one wants to talk about.

That makes it a good reason for me to talk about it.

We now know that a great deal of what passed for growth in the US over the past 20 years, starting with the Reagan administration, was financed by the creation of debt. Debt, by itself, is not a bad thing. In fact, it is needed for healthy growth. Companies, and countries, frequently reach stages in their growth when they need to borrow in order to reach another level of growth. When they get return from this new level of growth, they pay back and retire the debt. That is the way debt is supposed to be used.

Now, the problem which started in the US is that there was no intention to retire the debt. This was why the US Republican party pushed “deregulation” to get votes. Without deregulation, and a necessary amount of fraud, this debt mountain would not have grown as fast as they needed it to grow. Instead, the debt was sliced to ever finer parts, and sold into the global economy. Wall Street, especially its investment banks, became a mechanism for the creation, processing and sale of ever newer varieties of debt into the global economy. As long as there was growth, the system worked fine. And this is where the problem comes in: any system which can only survive when there is “growth” and cannot withstand changes and reverses in market conditions is effectively a Ponzi scheme. “Growth” becomes a means to its own ends, and becomes a necessity. When the “growth” conditions end, the system collapses.

Which is what we are going through now.

What we are going through right now is the great unwinding or deleveraging of what has happened over the past 25 years. In simple terms, the investment bank firms, and now hedge funds, and so much of the US financial industry became addicted to leveraging. Now they cannot leverage anymore, and their business model no longer works.

This raises a very interesting question which I have not seen others ask yet. That is “If debt financing and leveraging did not happen in the US, then how big would the US and global economy be?” In dollar numbers, it would be much smaller, and financial services and outsourcing would be much less important features of the US economy. There would be more manufacturing, and China would not have grown as quickly because it would not have had such a huge US export market to sell its products to. Without such fast economic growth, it is likely that the Chinese government would have had to look at social and political reforms sooner rather than later. Faster growth would have been replaced by slower more solid and more balanced growth.

China has made this problem bigger because it insisted on keeping the yuan at a lower exchange rate in order to protect its main export market, the US, addicted to Chinese exports. As I have said earlier on this blog, China and the US are two sides of the same coin. But right now, the two sides do not enjoy the same interests. The Ponzi scheme which served both sides so well no longer exists. This means that there will be recrimination and anger as each side seeks to pin the blame on the other side.

If we are ruthlessly honest about unwinding the overleveraging, I suspect that much of the world’s growth (60-75% + compounding) since the late 70s would not exist. Obviously, that is an outcome none of the world’s governments would have an interest in.

The main problem in economics is: “What is productivity, and how do we measure it?” I do not pretend to have an answer to that very challenging question, but I suspect that most of the improvements in production over the past 30 years come from improvements in information technology. These improvements in productivity mean that it is possible to create more with less people.

The real problem now is there are too many people, and most of them are not very productive in terms of adding value to an economy.

My guess is that as the unwinding continues, people will get angrier as their standards of living fall. When this happens, governments will have to choose which is worst, deflation (caused by unwinding) or inflation. Inflation has the advantage in that it can hide the real fall in living standards by gradually debasing and eroding the value the currency, but making the general populace think that they are making more money. The downside is that inflation is notoriously difficult to control. In a worst case scenario, it turns a country into an Argentinian or Brazilian basket case, where inflation becomes a routine tool for controlling the masses. More darkly, it drives the entrepreneurial class to other countries where they can make a better living for themselves and for their children.

When it does go out of control, it becomes the most powerful and deadly destroyer of wealth there is.

And that is the current situation where we are…

In my next article, I will talk about the businesses which will do well during The Great Unwinding.

If there is one thing which most western companies coming into China miss out on is the idea of “trial spots”, or as they are called in Chinese 试点。

So what is it? Basically, it’s a city, place, province or region which is used to try out something experimental which has not been tried before. When China first opened up, Shenzhen was a trial spot for opening up the economy to foreign manufacturing investment. When the experiment succeeded, it was pushed out to the other parts of China. Shanghai and Beijing were opened as tier one cities to foreign companies and employers, mostly in the service sector. When these experiments worked, the opening up gradually started. In most cases, the trial spots were selected by the central, provincial or municipal governments.

Now, there is another little secret. Large SOEs (state-owned enterprises) also often have their own trial spots. Most of the time, these are used to put some of the rising senior-level managers in to try new management practices. They are usually given a city, and a long leash, and are encouraged to try new ways of management. Often these managers are people who have made it to a certain level in a state-owned enterprise, but will not or cannot rise higher because they are somewhat non-conformist, and shall we say, less interested in politics. (Remember that in SOEs, the party also has a say in the selection of candidates for senior positions.)

Frequently, the Chinese way of handling these non-conformists is to give them a “trial spot” where they can experiment in a city or provincial division on their own. If something goes wrong with their experiment, then the damage is limited to their immediate market. If, on the other hand, the experiment was successful and includes practices which can be used on a larger scale, then that person may be promoted to a higher position with greater responsibility. This is how the current leadership of China has been groomed, just to cite an example.

The interesting thing is that many western companies, even consultants, are completely unaware of these practices. They look at their choice of investment areas in western terms, which usually means that which is clear, and out there, in the open.

They don’t study the people.

Instead, they should ask where the different “trial spots” are, and the backgrounds of the people they are dealing with. The right questions to ask for SOEs are:

• “How did this person get to this position?”
• “What is he trying to do?”
• “How is he different?”
• “What do his employees think of him?”
• “What are his goals and his definition of success?”

If it sounds like questions an intelligence agency would ask when examining the new leadership of a country, then it does because it is just like that. I call this “due diligence with Chinese characteristics”.

And how do you get this information? I find the best way is walk in and ask (In Chinese, of course. Speak English and you only get the official line.)

For the most part, you will never find these people in Beijing or Shanghai unless they have been very successful. These are two highly conformist politically-charged cities, and the only way they make it to these cities is if they are in very senior positions, and their views have been vindicated.

Generally speaking, Chinese, even including the party, are more tolerant of non-conformists. Just don’t look for them in Beijing and Shanghai. Deng Xiaoping, the architect of China’s reforms, was for many years considered a non-conformist and was punished repeatedly for his views. Eventually, his policies became the mainstream.

So, how will the recent economic problems affect things? Basically, we are going through the collapse of an old world order, and nothing new to replace it has come up yet. The Chinese government, the party and Chinese SOEs will be looking for answers on what comes next to restore order, growth and stability. After all, this is what Chinese social stability depends on.

For Chinese government and party officials, it will be a good time to be something of a maverick. But these mavericks will only survive and prosper if they can come up with the right answers to some very tough questions.

I was interviewed by China Speakers Bureau re my views on how the global financial slowdown would affect China. You can listen to the podcast here.

Some signs point to a rapid deceleration of the Chinese economy:

• Politburo to convene urgent economic meeting
• Chinese Domestic Olympic Travel Falls Lower Than Expectations
• Unsold inventories climbing
• Shanghai Vanke first to lower real estate prices in Shanghai (in Chinese)

The whole idea of an urgent politburo meeting just three weeks before the Beijing Olympics is a strong indicator of how serious the ruling levels of the Chinese government see this situation and would, in my opinion, be an ominous sign.

All of the signs point to an economy which is rapidly deflating, following on the falling performance of the Shanghai stock exchange, which has fallen more than 50% in the first half of the year. A lot of money which people thought they had made, and did not think of converting into cash thinking that it would go higher, is no longer there.

In China, this is always a warning sign of potential social instability. It also explains a lot about why the Chinese government has introduced new licensing regulations for online video and other communications means where people can communicate quickly, spreading views contrary to the official line, and events can quickly spin out of control.

If the Chinese economy deteriorates, as signs suggest, then it would be safe to say the government controls would tighten further. This would especially be the case in areas where foreign investment capital has gone into sensitive media sectors, which is always viewed with some degree of suspicion by the Chinese government.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to watch Part 1 of Ted Koppel’s documentary series The People’s Republic of Capitalism on the Discovery Channel. Instead of going to Beijing and Shanghai, the normal stops for most first-time visitors to China, Koppel went to Chongqing, a city I have visited and written about.

The documentary is very intelligent and well-done, Koppel covers companies in the US who relocate their manufacturing to Chongqing, and the effect on the lives of the American workers who lose their jobs in the US, as well as the Chinese workers in the factory in Chongqing. He also compares how differently WalMart is viewed in China and the US. Koppel does a very good job of providing context about the effects of globalization, which mix good as well as bad for everyone.

Part of the reason the documentary format is appealing is because:

• Many news departments cannot afford to send someone to a foreign country to live in and understand a different society for any length of time, even for a country as important as China
• Most editorial head offices have their own agenda, and see things very differently from the local people, which leads to an unbalanced view
• The views of many Chinese are often dismissed because westerners think that they are, rightly or wrongly, closely supervised by minders and are only speaking the government line

Koppel is fortunate because he had an excellent record on his nightly news program, Nightline, which he hosted for nearly 20 years. And now, he is able to make the kinds of programs he likes, without having to worry about time and budget considerations. It would be nice if there were more journalists who could make documentaries the way Ted Koppel is able to.

The series is a four-part series showing on four consecutive nights. If you are outside the US, you will most likely be able to buy the series from iTunes, because Discovery regularly sells their documentaries in the Apple iTunes Store.

“Interfering in another country’s internal affairs” is a routine mantra often used by Chinese government spokespersons, and is used most often when pointed at the US and US critics, especially with regard to human rights policies.

On the surface, this makes a lot of sense, especially with regards to generally ignorant US politicians, movie stars and others, who would have a hard time finding places like Tibet and Darfur on a map, but are moved by some of the images they see on television. For them, China and Chinese policies are a very convenient whipping boy, even though they have very little context and understanding of the real underlying issues.

This naturally puts the Chinese government on the defensive and more recently, some Chinese have become angry at the overseas criticism.

So who’s right and who’s wrong? Those who argue against interfering in another country’s internal affairs, or those who say it’s OK to do so?

The fact is that if a country is big and has a strong economy, whatever it does has an effect on other country’s economies, and on the global economy. Even though only American citizens’ can vote in their elections, the gross stupidity and ineptitude of American economic and trade policies in recent years do not end at America’s borders.

They go far beyond it.

And the Chinese government has started complaining about it. After all, they hold huge amounts of US dollar-denominated treasuries which are losing their value daily as the US dollar loses value, and their sovereign wealth funds are blocked from making investments in Europe and the US, mainly on political and not economic grounds.

So aren’t Chinese government officials interfering in US internal affairs? Yes, but the two countries’ economies are so tightly intertwined, the US policies are having an effect on the Chinese economy. When they are so tightly bound together by trade and economics, there is no borderline. It’s as silly as the right arm complaining about the left arm.

The fact is that the US and China are like two handicapped people: one is blind and the other is deaf. They need each other in order to survive.

The sooner politicians, officials and miserably deficient media on both sides recognize that, the better. If they don’t, ordinary people will continue to get caught in the middle and distracted by bad policies and ignorant offline and online media pundits getting them to chase red herrings while the real problems get worse.