China is in deep trouble; it has a total debt to GDP ratio of 282%, the highest compared to the other big gdp countries. (http://bloom.bg/1evYSQ5). The housing bubble has already burst in the 3rd and 2nd tier cities in China, and the 1st tier cities are close to bursting. And the shanghai stock market is close to retracing back to 2000, since the current stock market has a p/e ratio that's 41% higher than that of US's 2000 dot com market. (http://bloom.bg/1HNgqA4)
When (not if) the china's stock market collapses, and the capital flight from China accelerates (estimated 600 Billion a year currently http://bit.ly/1NJQuIX), then China is going to be permanent decline for the next 10-20 years. It would be anyone's guess what China will do then, since it will inevitably suffer massive internal unrest, due to the fact that it's ruled by a bunch of dictators.
EDIT: China seems to be following the same path as Japan in 1990, except China has really screwed up their environment and rich people really want to leave the country.
There's a lot of hyperbole in this post. The graph you link to of debt-to-GDP is actually very similar in China (282), South Korea (286), Australia (274), USA (269), Germany (258), and Canada (247). And for the record, South Korea's is higher than China's according to that graph. China's is more heavily weighted in "non-financial corporate" which is interesting.
You're assuming both a continued free-fall at the same rates and also that p/e ratios in China mean the same thing as they did for .com companies in 2000 in USA. Any market newbie will tell you that what a "normal" p/e ratio is will differ greatly by sector even within the same economy. China's may be out of whack, but it's not fair to make an arbitrary comparison.
I'm no China apologist, but making predictions of 10-20 years of decline with an authoritative tone is wrong given the facts you presented.
I think hysteria would be warranted if the Chinese government were to take a Schumpeter/Hayek/Mellon liquidationist response to the collapse of the market bubble (see the US/Europe circa 1929). Why yes then you would have contagion spreading out into the real economy and a long depression.
I'm thinking not. Instead I the Chinese central bank will inject liquidity again, much to the horror of the WSJ Editorial board who will again sternly warn that such actions, mark their words! come to an bad end!
Why do people continue to use aggregate debt (including domestic bond debt and outstanding liabilities) to present GDP ratio as though it is a meaningful harbinger?
Any non-superficial analysis of what that entails and means should show you this is - while not entirely irrelevant - mostly meaningless as an indicator of economic health.
Well, you have to know at what interest rate the country borrows, and have an idea about the country's deficit and rate of GDP growth to know how sustainable the debt is, I suppose, but it's a pretty important number nevertheless...
I think there's a ton of economic incentive for the rich to leave China and move to the US. In fact, I'd argue it's happening now already, regardless of the performance of the Chinese economy.
Some observations:
- The luxury goods that the rich in China are looking for are much cheaper here in US. The international students I know at school go on insane shopping sprees at the Apple/Sony/Microsoft stores since how "cheap" all the products are compared to the 1.5-2+X markups they have to pay back home. I've seen some classmates fill their suitcases with luxury brand clothing, Apple computers, iPads, Playstations, Xbox, to all bring home and share with their families.
- Assets in the US are much more appealing options in terms of investments, especially real estate/property. There's been a lot of stuff written up in NYT about this. I've seen the same things here in South Bay (Mountain View, Cupertino) where brand new townhouses get snatched up instantly by wealthy families from China that can commit that much $ in such a short amount of time. Being able to pay for your house in cash moves you towards the front of the line.
- Avoiding the whole "corrupted officials with lots of $ in bribes" anecdote (despite it being somewhat true from the crazy stories that I've heard from friends in China), it is much easier to spend the money here without worry of alerting the Chinese government. Especially if you're paying for a lot of your things in cash. Spending money in a lavish manner in China raises a lot of eyebrows.
- Not too knowledgable on this aspect, but apparently there's the loophole where if you bring aging parents in China over to live in America, they can qualify for senior benefits from the US government. They come, despite never having worked in the US, and get monthly checks to cash that are substantial enough to live on. Don't know enough about this to elaborate and I'm a little skeptical about this, but have heard a lot about this.
- America is so much more attractive than China. A lot of the wealthy international students I met in college had very tracked and relatively stress-free lives growing up. They never had to study for or take the gaokao, which is the infamous college entrance exam, since they knew from early on that they would be coming to the US for their college education. A lot of them do try and swing for jobs here after graduation as well, since the pay is substantially higher than in China. Heard this sentiment from a lot of Hong Kong residents.
There are various currency controls that do make it hard to get money out of the country. Clearly it's possible, but if this starts happening in mass just watch as the top leadership makes that essentially impossible.
Sadly don't think it's stopped anyonw. Friend told me it's 50,000/person at any one time, but given the amount of money I've seen being being spent, I doubt that is stopping anyone.
Going to dig into if there are any loopholes for this. I think it's fascinating how so many people in China suddenly became self-made millionaires/billionaires + can spend that money so extravagantly in the US without much consequence.
There was a classmate from China last semester who came to class every day in a new custom sports car. Mondays was Lambourghinis, Tuesdays was R8, Wednesday was McLauren, Thursday was wrapped Panamera turbo, etc. And this kind of spending/demographic is pretty noticeable in Boston/Allston.
I don't think anyone will respond out of fear of being labeled a -------? I will only comment on buying realestate in the U.S.? I believe realestate should only be bought by U.S. citizens. Right now all a foreigner needs is a individual tax number, and money. We have no real idea how that foreign money was obtained?
Sure. Although I do think if people don't respond out of fear of being labeled, then it's a shame because it is possible to discuss this topic without being portrayed as a xenophobe/racist. A lot are just observations I've heard and seen, especially when I was a chaperone for children from some of China's elite a few years ago.
Interesting on limiting real estate to only citizens. Although I doubt homeowner(s) who are selling care about where the money comes from, especially if it's upfront and comes in cash. And if you look at some of the prices for these townhouses/homes in South Bay suburbs, I imagine it'd be hard to say no.
On the contrary, I think that any foreigner being able to buy real estate in the US is a big plus for the country. Think about it, real estate is one of the few things that can never be exported. When foreigners buy in the US, they're divesting money from other possible expenditures in their home country to be invested for a long time in America. This in turn improves the value of real estate, generates jobs on construction, agents, plus local fees, and so many other things that will end up in American pockets. If anything else I would make it easier to sell real estate to internationals.
If outside buying of real-estate isn't controlled, then you can get into the situation where locals and citizens cannot afford to buy property because its driven up by outside investors, especially ones who buy using large sums of cash.
It is true that it creates jobs and and local fees but ultimately the local populace should be able to afford houses. This situation becomes worse in areas where there is no new housing being built.
"A foreigner". Why do you care where they were born? If where someone was born is so important to you, why not extend it down to the state level and only let people buy in the state in which they are issued papers from?
This is indeed thinly veiled nationalism/racism.
In a properly functioning society, you should have no real idea how the domestic money was obtained, either. It's none of your business as a seller.
I think the more accurate assertion should be residents only. Or no long term unoccupied properties so people rent them out. Or you get my home town of Vancouver[0] or you get London[1], which is even more complicated. If your not a resident, then you can deal with just renting. In asian countries where they limit ownership to only citizens or residents, and your not china, you don't see such huge property value booms, and the average citizen there can afford a property.
I think the only reason why the bay area has become another Vancouver yet is because it has the huge tech industry surge to help support the prices somewhat. Also wide anti-NIMBY regulations could help a lot too.
The consequences of autocratic regimes and their capital flight is being felt around the world [2][3].
New york also suffers this to some extent with empty highrises owned by who know what.
In normal places where they aren't supply shocked I don't think it matters, but if your NIMBY enough a place where the price of a property doubles in 2-4 years, it can get pretty nuts.
And I'm not saying you cannot rent a place, just not own one unless your a full time resident XOR you have a high tax on long term unoccupied properties that encourages property owners to rent out their spaces. I would actually just prefer a long term unoccupied property tax. The key is unused empty properties, not who owns it. Increase supply, and remove perverse incentives to not just sit on supply.
Unfortunately we cannot just pick on SF's landlord unfriendly laws here, because the supply shock applies to the entire bay area. Removing those laws to encourage landlords to rent out their empty properties would be an improvement.
While it may not make sense, there are quite a few counties where there are restrictions to buying land and real estate.
Not sure about the reasoning, some are well off countries, others middling to low achieving countries. Still, it's not out of the ordinary to have restrictions.[1]
Greece, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, China and others.
I don't think it's racism. I do think it has to do with nationalism. Perhaps misguided. In some cases it's ideological (China, Vietnam, for example.)
While citizenship is conferred primarily based on where one was born (a fact that has little or nothing to do with a person's capabilities, ideas, loyalties, or qualifications) it is in almost all cases serving as a thin veil over institutionalized racism.
I don't think a persons capabilities, ideas, loyalties or qualifications are innate to ones birth either. I don't understand how it serves to institutionalize racism, could you please explain?
I mean a stopped clock will still be correct at least twice a day so I'm sure the naysayers will be correct eventually too.
Anyway, I doubt China will suffer massive internal unrest, because those dictators aren't as dictatorial as you might believe and because most of the Chinese population generally support their government, at least in principle, and see instances of abuse and corruption as 'bad apples' spoiling the bunch rather than any sort of problem with the system or government itself.
In fairness, the tacit Sino-American currency union has propped up Chinese industry since the Nixon Era. Predicting that the U.S. would eventually fatigue of this arrangement wasn't totally insane. Those folks just didn't appreciate that the U.S. and China were going to keep trucking along until China's population was well and truly urbanized. China just cracked the 50% urbanization ratio in the last couple of years, so who knows if the government there will remain motivated to drag peasants into the cities, or not.
That is one outcome, assuming China tries to repay their debts. And as you are aware that hasn't worked out very well for Japan. If I was China and shit hits the fan, I would declare bankruptcy. It would hurt everyone but a shock like that probably has less chance of triggering a revolution than 20 years of decline.
In the case of both Japan and China, most of their debt is held internally.
That's why Japan is debasing the Yen, instead of performing a traditional default. They're unable to afford their debt, but if they just outright default, that will hammer their economy in one big hit - the creditors are the Japanese people. The Yen debasement hits them as well, and reduces the real value of the debt, but the premise is it's a gradual process they can adjust to over time (and the politicians get to lie about what's happening, another reason they all universally prefer inflationary schemes).
When (not if) the china's stock market collapses, and the capital flight from China accelerates (estimated 600 Billion a year currently http://bit.ly/1NJQuIX), then China is going to be permanent decline for the next 10-20 years. It would be anyone's guess what China will do then, since it will inevitably suffer massive internal unrest, due to the fact that it's ruled by a bunch of dictators.
EDIT: China seems to be following the same path as Japan in 1990, except China has really screwed up their environment and rich people really want to leave the country.