Skip to content

Bloomberg: Hard Landing in Sight?

December 17, 2011

Earlier this week, I appeared on Bloomberg, and the interview was posted online under the cheerful headline “Chovanec says China faces harder landing than expected.”  I know, I’m a bundle of Christmas cheer these days — but as I said at the Economist conference a few weeks ago (in an allusion to Game of Thrones), “Winter is coming,” and these days, it’s hard to avoid noticing a distinct nip in the air.  You can watch me comments here (Bloomberg), here (Washington Post), or here (YouTube), depending on which connection works best for you.

I actually thought the Bloomberg interview was going to focus on the tax cuts and/or reforms that Chinese policymakers have been discussing as part of their effort to (a) re-stimulate the economy, and (b) encourage a substantive economic adjustment toward greater domestic consumption.  But the conversation never turned in that direction.  So I’ll share the thoughts I would have shared here:

  • Smart tax cuts can play a role in stimulating innovation and consumption in China, and hence growth.  But the key is cutting the right taxes, and stimulating the right things.  China’s current tax system is geared towards subsidizing production (particularly exports) and investment (particularly real estate) at the expense of savers and consumers.  This needs to change, but unfortunately many of the tax “reforms” officials are currently talking about go in the wrong direction.  Let me give three examples:
  1. Lower and middle-income earners account for over half of all income tax revenue in China (compared to the U.S., where the top 10% of income earners pay 71% of federal income taxes, and the bottom half pay only 3%).  This places a huge burden on lower-income earners and suppresses consumption.  The solution, some Chinese policymakers believe, is simple:  make the tax code more progressive.  They even started to shift in this direction earlier this year.  The problem, though, isn’t the tax rate — China’s top marginal rate is 45%.  The problem is uneven enforcement and collection.  SOE employees — including top management — receive a lot of their compensation in-kind (free food, free housing, free car with driver, etc) and tax-free.  Business owners can classify their income in ways that avoid taxes.  Officials, we all know, receive much of their income under the table.  The only people who actually pay 45% of their real income are foreigners or Chinese nationals working for foreign companies.  Raising their tax rates — which are already high — will just drive people to Hong Kong.
  2. One stimulus tax cut the Chinese government is talking about is increasing the VAT rebate for exports.  All that will do is reinforce the existing imbalances in the Chinese and global economies.
  3. One way the Chinese can potentially boost consumption is by creating a social safety net (either public or private in nature) that might allow people to lock up less savings to provide against unemployment, medical bills, or old age.  But the new National Social Security Law requires foreigners working in China to contribute to the payroll tax, even though they have no way of collecting the benefits (for instance, if you lose your job in China, you lose your visa, so you can’t collect unemployment).  Worse, Dalian is considering plans to remove the cap on payroll tax liability (now limited to three times the local average wage), which would effectively impose a 30% tax on top of the 45% income tax, for a total effective tax rate of 75%.  This is supposed to stimulate the economy?
  • As China does look at more meaningful ways to cut taxes, policymakers should keep in mind that China’s fiscal resources are not as limitless as they seem.  Officially, China’s public debt to GDP ratio is somewhere around 20-30% (depending on who’s doing the counting).  This ignores, however, the contingent liabilities that the Chinese government is on the hook for — bailouts for banks, local governments, ministries (like the Ministry of Railways), SOEs, the property sector (in the form of subsidized housing campaigns).  Relative optimists (like the folks at Dragonomics) put China’s actual debt to GDP ratio at 90%.  Pessimists (like Victor Shih, Michael Pettis, or the folks at Fitch) put it at 200% or higher — Greek levels.  Not to say that China shouldn’t be looking at ways to improve its tax system, and reorient its incentives — it should — but it does not have, as many seem to think, money to burn.

If you’re not thoroughly depressed already, you can check out an interview I did on CNN about a week ago (and only just located the link for) on latest summit held by EU leaders to resolve the Euro debt crisis.  A week later, I think my comments — I said that European leaders have no growth plan, and “are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic” — have held up rather well.  At first, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was quite confident in describing the meeting as a success, producing a landmark agreement that would bind the Eurozone together.  Now, a growing number of countries aren’t so sure.  The Czechs say they want to see the details, the Irish say they might have to hold a referendum.  And so it goes . . . no wonder the Chinese are nervous.

On my better days, I figure this is what the American Founding Fathers must have looked like when they were foundering around under the Articles of Confederation, before they sat down and drafted the Constitution.  And maybe that’s precisely what Merkel and Sarkozy are driving at.  But I can’t help seeing a whole lot of Rhode Islands here (which didn’t ratify the Constitution until more than a year after President Washington was sworn into office) who have no intention of signing up for the French or German idea of “a more perfect union.”

Last, on a much-needed lighter note, check out this wonderful parody from The Onion on Facebook as a not-so-secret CIA program.  My favorite line, on Twitter as a failed CIA program: “Funding for that should be cut entirely … 400 billion tweets and not one useful bit of data was ever transmitted.”  Second best part:  “Operation Farmville”.

9 Comments leave one →
  1. December 18, 2011 2:12 pm

    Merkel’s first name is Angela.

    It would appear that the Chinese leadership is as out of touch with its own society as the politicians of Europe and the US. Like them, all are busy preening themselves on the international stage for the manner in which they have addressed the fiscal problems which politicians are responsible for in the first place.

    At least democracies can blame their predecessors for the current situation, but a one-party state has no such luxury. China is wherever the Party has taken it to, and the Party has no idea how to change course. The “rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic” is not only going on in Europe, but in an uncaring and selfish Congress in the US and in an equally out of touch CP leadership in China.

    The analogies between the European “Union” and China are too close for comfort. The economic powerhouse regions of China are as loath to see their hard-earned savings being squandered on Inner Mongolian ghost cities as the Dutch and Germans are to fund shorter working hours and lower retirement ages in other EU member states.

    Whatever fiscal “solutions” are adopted will only succeed in making life more challenging for the average citizen. What is required is a more creative leveling of the social playing field, not by spreading the poverty, but by redeploying the wealth.

    • prchovanec permalink*
      December 18, 2011 7:51 pm

      Thanks for the heads-up on Angela — I knew that, but made a silly typo late at night.

  2. Max permalink
    December 18, 2011 10:06 pm

    I’m puzzled by the statement that China has limited fiscal resources. If China is exporting too much, investing too much, and consuming too little – that is the definition of frugality, is it not? It’s the opposite problem of Greece. Greece consumes more than it produces. China produces more than it consumes.

    • prchovanec permalink*
      December 18, 2011 10:37 pm

      The short answer is, if you squander what you save, you will end up with very little. A country that has an extremely high capital accumulation rate, but extremely inefficient use of capital, will not grow any quicker (or more sustainably) than a country with a relatively low savings rate but extremely efficient use of the capital it does save (or attracts from others, given its productive returns). It’s worth noting that Japan, another country with an extremely high savings rate, also encountered this problem. The precise dynamics may be different, but persistent surplus imbalances can be just as harmful to an economy as persistent deficit imbalances. Subsidizing overproduction and subsidizing overconsumption are both economically wasteful.

      • Max permalink
        December 19, 2011 9:07 am

        OK, but the point is that China does, in fact, have money to burn – over a trillion dollars worth, and more every day. China is a creditor nation. The domestic debt, which corresponds to domestic savings, is not any kind of constraint.

  3. TheDigitMan permalink
    December 19, 2011 7:45 am

    Max, you need to read more widely. China is like a McMansion built on weak footings and a more unstable soil base. Big houses look great until the earth moves. Think of China as a House of Cards – it only takes one variable to bring it down. Right now – there’s a couple of variables working against it (China) – I wish the Party well in turning a hard landing in to prosperity.

  4. taipeir permalink
    January 4, 2012 2:12 pm

    The best way to ensure stability would be to give the peasants full title to their farms. Oh wait, the government already sold most of the valuable land out from under them.


  1. China’s Hooverian Twist and the New Asian Financial Crisis | Malthusian Nectar
  2. Foreign Affairs: China’s Real Estate Crash | Singapore Property Market News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: