China Rising, Rent-Seeking Version

The usual concern about the US-China balance of economic and political power is couched in terms of our relative international payments positions.  We’ve run a large current account deficit in recent years (imports above exports); they still have – by some measures – the largest current account surplus (exports above imports) even seen in a major country.  They accumulate foreign assets, i.e., claims on other countries, such as the US.  We issue a great deal of debt that is bought by foreigners, including China.

There are some legitimate concerns in this framing of the problem - no country can increase its net foreign debt (relative to GDP) indefinitely without facing consequences.  And the Obama administration, ever since the Geithner-Clinton flipflop on China’s exchange rate policy early in 2009, seems quite captivated by this way of thinking: Will they buy our debt? Can we control our budget deficit? What happens if China dumps its dollars?.

The reason real to worry about China, however, has very little to do with external balances, China’s dollar holdings, or even capital flows.  It’s about productivity and rent-seeking.

China mostly invests in activities that raise productivity, raising the amount of goods and services that they can produce.  This could be manufacturing or infrastructure or various kinds of services. Agriculture lags but continues to get some new investment. And of course they pour money into education.

I’m not a fan of the Chinese way of organizing their economy or their society.  They no doubt have weaknesses that will catch up with them eventually (including waves of overinvestment in some sectors), and there’s good reason to think they will be the center of a big new “Asia Century” Bubble that is just now starting to emerge.

But contrast their pattern of investment in recent years with ours.  What sector in our economy has expanded more than any other?  Where should you work if you want both the highest wages on average, potentially very big bonuses, and quasi-retirement by age 40?  Finance.

Of course, we need finance and an important part of modern economic development involves intermediating savings and investment.  The US did this well, with some bumps in the road, and built a system that worked through the 1960s or 1970s.

But finance as a share of our activities (i.e., percent of GDP) has roughly doubled in the past 40 years.  What has this really added in terms of productivity?  The ATM and the credit card were great breakthroughs, but they are old.

Read more . . .

Related articles by Zemanta

• Many things that you know about China are wrong (economist.com)
• Forget global imbalances, it is now a Sino-American imbalance - (blogs.cfr.org)
• China, new financial superpower … (blogs.cfr.org)

Random Posts:

• Back From the Brink
• World’s first stainless steel baby bottles – safe, strong and sustainable
• Bursting the branding bubble
• Yet Another Study Shows That Patents Lead To Sub-Optimal Innovation
• Eating carbon – Big WOW!

Related posts:

1. China’s Threat Revives Race for Rare Minerals
2. China’s Incinerators Loom as a Global Hazard
3. China Tightens Grip on Rare Minerals
4. Watching China Run
5. Why China Isn’t “The Next Silicon Valley”

Tags: account surplus, budget deficit, chinese way, current account deficit, exchange rate policy, flipflop, foreign debt, geithner, Innovation, international payments, legitimate concerns, new asia, productivity

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 at 8:58 pm and is filed under Innovation Needed, baseline scenario, economics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.