The Daily Bell Newswire – It's Free!

News & Analysis

China Struggles Against Bust

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 – by Staff Report

Even China's own government officials are now worried about a bubble brewing in the world's second biggest economy. Government researchers estimate that the economy may grow as much as 16 percent this year, pushing inflation higher and risking a bubble in the real estate market, Bloomberg reports. The researchers say the government must withdraw its stimulus to keep the bubble from bursting. "If the government continues with the same strength of macro-economic stimulus as in 2009, there will be notable economic overheating in 2010," Yao Zhizhong and He Fan, economists with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said in an article published in the official China Securities Journal. The government adopted a $586 billion fiscal stimulus package last year, and the central bank loosened monetary policy. Already the central bank has started to reverse its stimulus, guiding three-month bill yields higher for the first time since August. China also has raised the proportion of deposits that banks must hold in reserve, in the clearest sign yet that it has started to tighten monetary policy with its economy roaring back to the brink of overheating. – MoneyNews

Dominant Social Theme: Now they tell us.

Free-Market Analysis: Last year ('09) we made two pretty good calls against the prevailing wisdom of the day. We proclaimed that the Federal Reserve was in big trouble as an institution (an somewhat unheard of idea when we mentioned it) and not much later we pointed out that the Chinese economy was in a state of a perpetual bubble. While these were fairly bold statements, we were not especially surprised when both of these prognostications received growing support in the alternative press and then the mainstream press.

http://www.thedailybell.com/443/Chinese-bank-announces-bombshell.html
http://www.thedailybell.com/384/Federal-Reserve-cannot-account-for-9-trillion.html

Today our perceptions on both these fronts seem fairly old hat. The Fed is under attack from all quarters and may actually end up being audited. The Chinese bubble has not yet burst – it has been inflating for many years – but there aren't a whole lot of articles being written about the Chinese miracle anymore. Most articles we read these days about China are a good deal more grim. Here's some more from this one:

Yao and He also are concerned about China's exploding trade surplus. The country's exports jumped 17.7 percent in December from a year earlier.

"The export rebound will add significant momentum to China's growth, contributing about 7.5 percentage points to growth in GDP," Yao and He wrote.

The two government economists aren't the only ones concerned about a bubble in China. Legendary short seller James Chanos is betting on a collapse there.

"Bubbles are best identified by credit excesses, not valuation excesses," he said recently on CNBC. "And there's no bigger credit excess than in China."

We pointed out that a Chinese growth rate of 10 percent or more PER QUARTER year in and year out was not a testament to vibrant management but to unbridled money printing. The Chinese people as a whole are entrepreneurial and hard working, and the "people's part" of the economy has truly been privatized. But when it comes to its larger financial sector, the Chinese government has adopted wholesale the socialist mixed management of Western nations – especially the United States.

Despite the similarities, there are differences between Western and Chinese economic practices that are likely far more specific than are being reported. Fifty years ago China was still treating its educated classes as the enemy and sending them to prison. It is only in the past 25 years or so that China has made significant progress from a "modernization" standpoint. But if you read articles today in most major mainstream publications, you will find that this 25-year overlay is ignored. Instead, Chinese fledgling financial institutions are treated as the equivalent of Western counterparts.

Conclusion: We can't prove it, but we tend to believe most of what the still-communist government has erected from a financial perspective – banks, stock markets, financial structures generally – are functioning from a command-and-control standpoint. That is, they tend to do what the party wants them to do. In the West, financial institutions have difficulty because they are ultimately beholden to central banking monetary inflation plus a growing regulatory apparatus. But we think in China, the situation is much worse and the lack of free-market autonomy for the financial sector is most pronounced. Right now, all of this is papered over by the Chinese penchant for printing endless billions of yuans. Money printing covers up a host of problems. But when it stops, watch out.


NOTED: UK universities warn that they face 'meltdown' ... Oxford, Cambridge and other British universities said Tuesday that the government's plan to cut hundreds of millions of pounds (dollars) from their funding would put their world-class reputations in jeopardy. Unlike most elite institutions in the United States, Britain's top schools rely almost exclusively on taxpayers keeping them going. But strapped for cash, the government has slashed its higher education budget by 600 million pounds (nearly $1 billion) over the next three years-a figure British media say comes to a 12 percent reduction when combined with other cuts. British universities have little chance of raising big funds on their own: Student fees by law are capped at about 4,000 pounds a year, and endowments generally are no more than modest. (Ed note: And so the revolution eats its own ...) – AP




Latest Daily Bell Articles

Feedback

Effective April 25, 2012, the Daily Bell will discontinue allowing feedback comments. We have left in place the large body of responses posted in the past, as we appreciate the valuable contributions made by some of our readers.
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 - Newest on top - Reorder Feedback
  Posted by Bill Ross on 01/14/10 06:05 PM

A little clarification:

Regarding: "For your children? Your wife? Your familial community?"

For EVERYONE. Again, Justice Defined: We are all free to profit or suffer and learn (adapt to excellence) by facing the consequences of our OWN choices. Injustice is to be forced to suffer the consequences of choices of unaccountable (irresponsible) others.

Is baseline justice, for all persons, the default in the absence of a specific, mutually agreed contract (which defines particular rights / obligations for the parties). In fact, this gives us all our personal rights which we can trade, in contract.

Call it a persons stock in trade.I posit, the "common interest" cost to civilization of allowing predators (achieve goals by force / fraud) or suffering some to be prey (must respond with conflict) is high enough that all private individuals and justice entities will find it in their interest to enforce this, at their own expense, without coercion.

The voluntary charity stats PROVE that the majority is socially conscious to the plight of others. In fact, "helping the unfortunate" was a very powerful "social meme" (your term) of our "masters" who insisted it be unconditional, creating dependents (and political power).

I don't think we are disagreeing, just mis-understanding. I DO NOT advocate state law which is just an exploitation / conflict creation tool.

Private law / common morality (cause no harm is default) is the way to go.

Reply from The Daily Bell

OK, we'll give you the last word. Thanks for the thoughtful dialogue on this issue. You're welcome to comment further on it as you choose ...

  Posted by Bill Ross on 01/14/10 05:23 PM

"Why define justice or "insist" on a certain kind?" There is only one kind of justice which naturally evolved. Nobody will willingly give up right to life or submit to harm.

My definition above reflects that. Or, if you want it in terms of morality: Be neither predator nor suffer any to be prey. Some may want to be predator but none will be prey. Their defensive conflict collapses civilization. I concede the point that some may willingly contract a temporary predator / prey relationship (such as apprenticeship, slave wages plus training). In this case, justice is concerned with enforcing a defined contract (honest trade).

Reply from The Daily Bell

"Nobody will willingly give up right to life or submit to harm."

For your children? Your wife? Your familial community?

Come on, Bill ... "justice" and "morality" are fungible and deponent to circumstances, personal convictions, etc. That's why market based, private justice is seemingly the fairest solution.

  Posted by Bill Ross on 01/14/10 03:40 PM

"How about the rule of common law via private arbitration?"

So long as there are absolute, unquestionable rights (to exist, to choose, as above, but not entitlements) plus certain compensation for those who are entrapped this can work.

These absolutes could be the terms of arbitration that both parties agree to. Still problem of crooks being unwilling to agree to mutual arbitration. What then? Private cops?

Operating under whose rules? I do not dispute that private justice is the way to go, only point out that justice needs to be objectively defined.

Here's my definition: Justice Defined: We are all free to profit or suffer and learn (adapt to excellence) by facing the consequences of our OWN choices. Injustice is to be forced to suffer the consequences of choices of unaccountable (irresponsible) others.

Otherwise, the law will devolve to what it is now: An extortion racket, injustice rampant because it is uneconomical to seek it and better to take a smaller hit by tolerating injustice by settling with extortion as opposed to justice costing much larger tribute.

Not sure if you are aware of Jim Bell's "solution" to holding power to account (not advocating, this caused him a world of woes from power):

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Why define justice or "insist" on a certain kind? Wouldn't it merely evolve as necessary in a free market? Even libertarians sometimes seem to have a compulsion to define justice and morality (and by implication inflict their solutions somehow through authoritarian measures) as if the communal marketplace itself is not capable of the appropriate definitions and practices.

  Posted by Bill Ross on 01/14/10 03:12 PM

"And so the revolution eats its own.

Yes, when predators run out of tasty prey (destroy the productive's ability / motivation to be so), they turn on each other.

That is why "rule of parochial man" ultimately collapses civilization. Without "rule of law," absolute rights to: life, earned property, free association and speech and other dispute resolution absolutes, "division of labor" is hampered and / or burdened with unproductive costs such that honest trade is no longer viable for goal seeking.

This leaves only two goal seeking options: force or fraud, which destroy civilizations (the rules by which we cooperate for MUTUAL self-interest).

Reply from The Daily Bell

How about the rule of common law via private arbitration?

  Posted by Brian on 01/13/10 08:23 PM

After bankrupting the federal government, the Federal Reserve enslaved all Americans by forcing them to pay the interest on their counterfeit money loans to the state. The nameFederal Reserve is actually a misnomer as it is neither 'federal nor a 'reserve. There is not one single elected official within the Federal Reserve who is accountable to the people. It is for all intents and purposes an independent institution and therefore not representative of the American electorate. Taxation without representation truly is tyranny and anathema to everything that is -- or should I say was -- America. The anathema is back, only in a different form. The current generation of Americans, like their eighteenth century predecessors, have an important question to answer. Are they willing to accept taxation without representation? King George must be spinning in his grave with envy. If only he and his parliament had been smart enough to implement a central banking system based on fiat currency, and the colonists had been dumb enough to accept such a system, he may have been able to avoid the whole "taxation without representation" fiasco and hold on to his cherished American colonies.

I'm happy to see the Federal Reserve increasingly come under attack from all different directions, however I think the Utopian idea of the Fed being audited seems a mere pipe dream right now, nevertheless it's a pipe dream that I believe could one day become reality. In June, 2009 Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke unleashed an alarming veiled threat of financial terrorism when he was questioned by Rep. John Duncan about his response to the fact that a majority of Congress was co-sponsoring Ron Pauls bill to audit the Federal Reserve. When asked by Rep. Duncan: 'Do you feel the Federal Reserve is operating with too much secrecy and too much refusal to disclose? Bernanke replied in vigorous defense that the Fed had madegreat strides under his leadership to disclose more information and that the Fed is willing to consider specific requests from Congress.

He argued, however, that subjecting the Fed to audits would be disastrous because he said it would give Congress a means of influence over monetary policy, with dire consequences for 'our national economic situation. Hence, the Feds veiled threat of financial terrorism delivered by Ben Bernanke, the front man for the New World Order financial criminals.

The highly secretive meeting of seven bankers and economic policy makers who represented the Western worlds financial elite held at Jekyll Island, Georgia in November 1910 (read Ed Griffins masterpiece 'The Creature from Jekyll Island to learn all the details) led to the Democrats pushing the Federal Reserve Act through Congress in late 1913 - and they have done nothing but plunder America ever since they were put into power.

I'd like to thank The Daily Bell and righteous politicians such as Ron Paul, a true representative of the people, for taking a stand against these criminals at the Federal Reserve. Audit first, then ABOLISH!!!

Reply from The Daily Bell

Good points, thanks.

  Posted by Klaus Kaufmann on 01/13/10 02:51 PM

Already years ago I countered my brother's arguments that China will soon overtake the USA as world power with the comment, "Yeah, but only as long as the USA keeps buying..."

Reply from The Daily Bell

And the Chinese keep printing ...

  Posted by Shawn on 01/13/10 02:46 PM

Breaking news: The China seesaw is down again, OH NO, they have to save the world. The Communistic, economically closed, protectionistic, manipulated, over inflated country that works on a hundred year plan and has an unfathomable mass of human workers is not going to have a 20 growth rate this year, we are doomed. The US needs to be come less reliant on others and has to be retooled and this will take years and lots of pain, we don't like pain. I don't see this happening until there is a complete collapse of America and that is on the horizon. The dollar will take the lead.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Good point.

  Posted by Jack H. Swift on 01/13/10 01:55 PM

Whether the Chinese expansion is merely a bubble will be a matter of whether its economic manipulations are ultimately matched by production.

If the monetary expansion is matched by a commensurate expansion of production, all will be well. If not, it will induce nothing but a bubble.

Reply from The Daily Bell

No, Sir, from our point of view excessive monetary production always deforms an economy and inevitably puts many of the jobs created at risk. We believe China shall be no exception.

  Posted by Bearbite on 01/13/10 04:45 AM

We will see if the China miracle continues!

Reply from The Daily Bell

Time will tell.