To: jrhana who wrote (20710 ) 10/26/2004 9:56:44 AM From: mishedlo Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 110194 Misconception: China Will Remain A Deflationary Force For the World Because of its Excess Labor Pool The idea behind this "misconception" is that wages in China are going up. Big deal. So what that China wages go from US$2 per hour to US$3 per hour or whatever. Is it even that high? Relative towards the US the global labor arbitrage is still enourmous. We are going to continue to lose jobs to India and China regardless of whether or not wages in China are escalating. That is hugely deflationary, at least to the US. Furthermore even China is losing manufacturing jobs. With rising productivity, new equipment, etc etc etc add it all up and it takes fewer Chineese to produce sweaters, coats, autos, toys, or whatever than it did 2 years ago. As long as productivity is keeping up with wages, wage growth is not inflationary. Unit labor costs and benefits represent an enormous part of productions costs in the US. In China, it represents a much much smaller % of production costs. I would suspect that commodities and energy are the biggest factors in Chinese costs. Yet, as we have seen prices of manufactored goods from China has NOT increased with those production costs. What is stopping them? OVERSUPPLY relative to demand is what is stopping them. You expect that to change when rising oil proces are slowing growth worldwide? Fat Chance IMO. Overproduction is deflationary. That is why prices of goods have not risen. Thus I conclude while on the surface it sounds like a good argument, in reality it is a piss poor one if one bothers to dig a little deeper.Misconception: China's Massive Bubble Infrastructure Building is Very Deflationary But the challenge in China is that the cycle can not unfold in this way for the simple reason that the current end-owner of all the "weak assets" is the government. And the government will unlikely become a "forced seller"! This is one of the sillier arguments that I have ever seen. The value of the assets can not fall because the government owns them. Ha ha ha. Anyone here really believe that?The recent sharp increase in capital spending in China has not been financed by private lending institutions but by state-owned government banks. A big part of China's growth is occurring either directly on the government's balance sheets (i.e.: spending by local authorities, towns and regions...) or indirectly on the government's balance sheet (i.e.: commercial banks). If/when the returns on capital fall below the cost of capital, we are unlikely to see a fire/sale of leveraged assets typical of a supply-side cycle deflationary bust; if for no other reason that a lot of the assets are on the government's book. In China, the government is the loser of first resort. Amazing theory. While we may not see a "fire sale" the assets will be worth what the assets will be worked. If Japan kept bad loans on the books for decades did that change what they were worth? This argument is really bordering on stupid IMO. So the important question on China is: what will the government do with its unproductive assets once their returns are below the cost of capital? Using History as a guide, it seems likely that the government will a) sell off its bad debts for cents on the dollar to foreigners willing to buy them (and take the loss on its books) and b) print money to cover its losses and ensure that the cost of capital does not rise too fast. In other words, China is not experiencing a supply-side cycle but is instead going through the expansionary phase of a demand-led cycle. The demand led cycle is what the Western World experienced in the 1960s and 1970s; and it is a cycle that most of us have forgotten about. The demand-led cycle was characterized by excess demand more or less all the time. This excess demand found its sources in an ever-present budget deficit which, more often than not, was monetized by a central bank very seldom independent from the political powers. WTF??? Someone please explain to me the transition in those last two paragraphs. How does the author arrive at the conclusion "In other words, China is not experiencing a supply-side cycle but is instead going through the expansionary phase of a demand-led cycle." on the basis that assets will not be sold because they are owned by the govt. Where is the case? He sure did not present one! The question is: is China overbuilding or not? Now, I really do not know the answer to this. Yiwi says no (or probably not), Andy Xie, Roach and others think so. Even if they are not, given a worldwide slowdown (are people really doubting that?) I would have to say at least for the short term, they have. If China's demand picks up internally perhaps we have another story, perhaps not because again we have to look at things not from the perspective of "Is this inflationary to the China", but "Is this inflationary to the US". The writer miserably failed to produce a case IMO, and his theories that 1) asset prices will not drop because they are owned by the govt and 2) because they are owned by the govt China is going thru a demand cycle is quite simply preposterous IMO. Yiwi or Russ any comments? Mish