12 Comments
User's avatar
Mostly Profitable Ideas's avatar

The US consumes more than it produces only because China has weak domestic demand and are forced to dump part of what it does not consume onto deficit countries. The US has to absorb the excesss savings from China by taking on debt. But the excess savings imported do not boost US investment as there is insufficient domestic demand. As a consequence, the US must constrain domestic savings by either higher unemployment or debt.

Expand full comment
Russell Clark's avatar

My argument is that Asia tried to consumed more, but then suffered the Asian Financial Crisis when american capital fled home. In response Asia has focused on having large foreign reserves - and hence exports to the US. Under the threat of tariffs they may well stimulate to buy more from america

Expand full comment
Mostly Profitable Ideas's avatar

I can't speak for Asia ex-china as I haven't sudied those economies but China largely avoided the Asian financial crisis since its financial system was relatively closed. I would characterise the build-up of forex reserves in China as a symptom of an economy with exceptionally low consumption as a share of GDP where labour over-produces relative to its consumption. The US, Canada, Australia and UK have open economies which absorb the excess production. The point of tarriff should be to change the role of surplus countries in absorbing excess foreign savings.

Expand full comment
Alan's avatar

This is my sense as well. What the US wants in the end is for China to spur domestic demand. That will spike rates but over the long term it’ll rebalance trade. My question though is can Xi stand this? How does he keep Made In China 2025 2.0 going if he is subsidizing consumption?

Expand full comment
Russell Clark's avatar

what choice does he have?

Expand full comment
Andy Fately's avatar

As well, consider the demographic problem Xi has, with population shrinking, growing aggregate domestic demand will be that much more difficult. it is going to be a very messy period going forward. and remember, it is not just the US that wants to bring production home, we are seeing the same desires (if not sensible policies) in Europe as well.

Expand full comment
mendo's avatar

talk of the "aging problem" misses the point that they still have a few hundred millions of low productivity rural inhabitants, which can move into cities

Expand full comment
Russell Clark's avatar

Full Hukou reform would be very positive for chinese growth

Expand full comment
mendo's avatar

increasing domestic consuption could also mean more money for the army etc, not (only) consumer toys

Expand full comment
Russell Clark's avatar

War is very inflationary!!

Expand full comment
TMacro06's avatar

Great insight and I can't believe after how long I have been doing macro research, especially gold, that I have not seen the CIX Bloomberg chart of US Treasuries vs Gold prices long term before. Well done!

Expand full comment
Alex Golubev's avatar

US = if Democrat, naive Marxist + Russo-wars (for energy exports to EU)

US = if Trump, 100yo Tariff game + Iran-regime change

China (secular) = Protocolization with Capitalist characteristics

China (tactical) = stimulated into 2015 rollout, smaller bruises THAN EU from '16-20 Tariff "wargamin"...

Big reason US inflation came down last few years is cause China was "busily" shutting down, correcting housing excesses...

- You think, they're gonna stimmy INTO tariffs round 2 or to counter?

- You think, China will even notice a bruise compared to the effect of tariffs on EU (allegedly US Ally)? (see "outrunning a bear, or your friend...")

- You think China's not actively courting EU (esp. Italy, Hungary, Greece)? esp. during "hard times"...

- You think TSLA's future Revenues are NOT in China?? DCF that.

this was ALWAYS a RENEGOTIATION, BECAUSE of what China rightfully rolled out in 2015. That future is inevitable. And people, please stop REGURGITATING your MSM talking points about "demographics"... take a look at how that's going everywhere and if it's even that relevant.

Do not look at the world through a US-capitalist lens of the last century or the "network effects" (which get UNDONE even faster... see "The Cold Start Problem" by the Uber network effect genius).

Look at China as "Protocolization with capitalist characteristics"... 2% inflation "hamster wheel" is hardly a law of economic physics. It was merely a CB political theory that was attempted. The San Fran bridge and origins of CORPORATIONS lie in getting a "monopoly-like toll" rights for a LIMITED AMOUNT of time.... Technology will always be DEFLATIONARY at its core. May Steve Jobs and his DRM and little screen burn in hell. Nothin more than a Malboro man of our generation.

Good luck trimming the budget Musk, while avoiding Conflicts-of-Interest awarding yourself government contracts to weather the TRADE WAR w/ China...

Expand full comment