The global economy is full of risks right now. Growth is sluggish and central banks seem powerless to fix it. Europe faces persistent challenges and division. In the US, the presidential election looms.
However, some say the biggest danger of all might be on the other side of the world, in China.
China is in the midst of one of the biggest borrowing binges in recent history. Its debt load reached US$26.6 trillion last year — about five times what it was a decade ago and more than two-and-a-half times the size of the nation’s entire economy. That huge increase has prompted some economists and even prominent investor George Soros to compare China to the US before the 2008 financial crisis.
Illustration: Yusha
How big a danger does China’s fast-growing debt load present to the nation or the world?
The traditional view is that rapidly rising debt eventually leads to an economic crisis. That can happen in several ways. In Greece, the culprit was the government, which built up more debt than it could handle. In the US, the risks lurked in the finances of banks and households.
In the case of China, the problem is primarily in the corporate sector. China’s big companies — especially those owned by the state — have done much of the borrowing. Higher debt means companies will have to spend more on interest and paying it back, and less on investing and hiring.
That is where a vicious cycle could come in. Less spending on investing and hiring hurts the overall economy, hitting corporate bottom lines and making it even harder for companies to pay off debt. Bad loans rise, banks freeze lending, confidence in the financial system can be shaken, leading to a full-fledged banking crisis.
China, which has the world’s second-largest economy after the US, plays a crucial role in generating global growth. Such a situation in China could ripple across the world.
On the other hand, a number of economists say China’s mountain of debt is not as scary as it appears.
HSBC chief economist for Greater China Qu Hongbin (屈宏斌) and his team argue that China’s debt is simply a result of the way its financial system works. For a variety of reasons, China’s corporations and households stash more money away than their peers in other nations. That cash piles up in banks and is turned into loans, resulting in China’s high level of debt.
Since the debt is backed by all that savings, it is not as risky, Qu says.
“Concerns about China’s debt levels reaching a critical threshold and posing a systemic risk are overblown,” the HSBC team wrote in April.
Others argue that China’s debt is less of a threat because it is to a great degree backed by the government. Much of it comes from state-run banks, which are the primary lenders to China’s large state-run companies. That means Beijing can stop banks from pushing borrowers too hard and would be more inclined to shore up the financial system, preventing the crisis that a more free-market economy might suffer.
The debt, too, is largely domestic, making China less likely to be pushed into a crisis by problems outside its borders, which have toppled debt-heavy emerging economies in the past.
Other economies, furthermore, have debt similar to or even bigger than China’s. Debt in the US, for instance, is about equivalent when compared with the size of the US economy. Japan’s is much larger, at about four times the size of its national output.
Still, there is ample evidence to suggest that a large expansion of debt almost always has disastrous consequences.
Capital Economics chief emerging markets economist Neil Shearing has studied more than 25 years of collapses in developing economies. He concludes that the pace of debt accumulation is more important than the overall level of debt in determining whether a nation faces a financial crisis. China’s pace of debt accumulation is well above the threshold he identified as indicating the potential for crisis.
Some economists say that even if China dodges a full-scale crisis, it might not be able to escape the damage caused by its rising debt. They fear that China could fall into a years-long slump like Japan, which has regularly suffered little or even no growth ever since its own banking crisis more than two decades ago.
In China’s case, the problems created by such an outcome would be much more painful, since it would enter that slow-growth period with its people at a much lower standard of living.
There are already signs that China’s debt is beginning to hamper progress in its economy. China’s banks have increased their lending to try to stimulate the economy, but the actual rate of growth has not picked up. That is partly because China’s economy requires more and more debt to produce the same economic results.
Wind Information general manager for North America Brandon Emmerich says that US$4 of new credit is necessary to generate just US$1 of additional GDP — the worst ratio since the depths of the last financial crisis.
One reason, Emmerich wrote in a newsletter, is that “most new debt in China goes to pay off old obligations rather than invest in new value-creating projects.”
After analyzing corporate bonds issued in China, he calculated that 42 percent of the money raised since last year was earmarked to pay off existing loans or expiring bonds, compared with only 8 percent in 2014.
In an August report, the IMF warned of “heightened downside risks” and the need for “decisive action” to reduce the economy’s reliance on credit, including reforming and even shutting down overly indebted companies.
“Vulnerabilities are still rising on a dangerous trajectory,” it said.
China has long defied predictions that it is heading for a crash and perhaps it will prove the doomsayers wrong yet again, but Beijing’s policymakers must limit the increase in debt without inflicting a severe blow to growth. That delicate balancing act is hard to manage, but Beijing might be left with no other choice.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers