LyrArc Article Gist
UN projections show median age of Chinese citizens will overtake that of Americans in 2020. Yet China's median income is only a quarter of that in the U.S. Life expectancy in China today is 76, very close to that in America. In 1960 a Chinese person born that year had life expectancy of 44 years.  China is aging at the pace of Japan, and a bit slower than South Korea, but wealth per capita was three times higher in South Korea and Japan than China when the aging accelerated. A Chinese woman fertility rate today is 1.6 compared to 4.6 in 1973. A prominent Chinese economist says in a recent report that median age in China in 2050 will be nearly 50 compared to 42 in America and 38 in India. WSJ cites figures showing China will have gone from 9 working age adults per retired person in 2000 to just two by 2050. So how to pay for retirement of all these workers today? Government spending on retirement is a tenth of GDP, about half the level in older wealthier countries, and increase in spending will impact growth. Today this is about 6.2% potential growth rate. It also pushes wages up with a shortage of workers in cities such as Shenzen and X'ian even with the use of new technology and robots in factories.  Solutions are to raise retirement age currently set at 60 years, increasing labor force participation of women as Japan has done, and increasing productivity. China has transferred 10% equity stakes in four state owned financial firms to the national pension fund to shore up its finances as estimates from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences show it running out of money in 2035. Traditionally children supported families in old age but the one child policy leads to situations where the child is working or in another city. In Suzhou near Shanghai, a retirement business sends 1800 helpers to private homes and 130,000 retired people, in a new trend. The city administration of Shanghai plans 400 neighborhood care centres for elderly by 2022, with health clinics, drop in facilities, and homes. 12,000 elderly people use one centrre in central Shanghai area of Changning. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Neil Irwin of NYT provides some counter intuitive ideas on U.S. Fed interest rate policy. He says it can't be take as a given that the Fed will raise rates in 2017-2018. This depends on how much punch there is in the Trump economic policies for stimulus, and for infrastructure spending, tax cuts. He cites Senate Majority Leader McConnell who said he would like to keep "tax reform revenue neutral." Getting large spending and pushing up the deficit is likely to run up against Republicans in Congress who have for 8 years opposed large spending increases and large deficits. Trump has given few details about his stimulus or infrastructure spending plans. He says the scale of the spending might not match the talk. Irwin cites JP Morgan Chase economists who have kept their forecasts for GDP growth just under 2% for 2017 and 2018. And he points out that even Trump appointees at the Fed might act independently. The Fed might look at being cautious considering that increased trade tensions with China, and the unpredictability of a Trump administration could hurt growth. Irwin does not mention the uncertainty in other areas such as policy towards Russia on which the Republican party and Congress have very different views than Trump, tensions over Taiwan, that can also affect growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This podcast in the WSJ takes up a Chinese startup Luckin Coffee that had major investors in the U.S. and China, including big banks in the U.S. and Europe.  The idea is simple- sell coffee in China to aspirational coffee drinkers following western lifestyles using mobile app. It is the story of huge investments and losses, and collapse of a NASDAQ listed company with what the WSJ investigation calls fabricated sales. Why are infrastructure and health, education products starved of capital left high and dry, while billions are poured into such investments with huge losses. All you need is this article in the WSJ of Sept 16, 2015, shown in today's articles. Showing forecasts of rapid growth of coffee consumption for an aspirational western lifestyle consumer in China, and a small mobile app investment to attract investors in a startup -if you refashion the coffee retail outlets as a tech company by selling coffee for delivery/takeout by mobile app. Luckin Coffee in China shown in the podcast in today's articles did this and attracted billions of dollars in investment from investors, including large banks and financial companies in Europe, U.S. and China, only to collapse in 2 years with losses and investigations in China and the U.S. Luckin Coffee soared after its NASDAQ stock exchange listing in 2018 only 1 year after its founding. WSJ calls it "brazen" the effort to add tech hype to a coffee company and have it listed on NASDAQ in just over a year, only to see its sales and value collapse just as quickly. $400 million in convertible bonds losing 90% of their value, the stock losing most of its value and NASDAQ delisting the stock after $311 million in fabricated sales were found as reported in the South China Morning Post. For U.S. investors the problem is that Chinese companies can list on the NASDAQ or other stock exchanges in the U.S., but U.S. investors cannot look at financial records of companies in China. Yet there are basic questions- why is it a tech company? Why are investors like big banks and other large financial investors pushing so much money into such places when there is so much that needs to be done in health and infrastructure investment, and real tech investment? 5G or 6G? Health systems? Ocean Grounds has a coffee store in Shanghai, Pacific Store has coffee retail outlets in China, and Starbucks is still in the business with retail outlets - remember none of these companies are tech companies. In 2017 Luckin Coffee started by making it look techy with a mobile app and refashioned itself as a tech company.  What is so big about a mobile app as there are hundreds of millions of apps. The rest came from making it look like Starbucks, right down to baristas, fancy coffee machines, and opening stores near Starbucks, according to the Podcast in the WSJ.The difference between Starbucks and Luckin Coffee - the price Luckin Coffee would sell for about $2 compared to about $4 for a Starbucks latte. Yet do this by pricing at closer to Starbucks and issuing promotions discounts constantly on the mobile app, that would bring the price to about $2. That is all it takes to make a tech company nowadays. No scientific research, no science and technology, no technical experience, nothing of the kind that led to the invention of the computer chip or the vaccines that are now being developed, or research activity of any sort. Banks, financial companies are willing to channel huge amounts of money into these places and lose it, as they did in We Work, and are doing at companies such as ride sharing app companies, as well as other app companies without any core technological component or value added such as infrastructure or health products. Only it is not the bank's money but the people's money and savings that are deposited at banks and channeled into investments. At the same time as investments in much needed infrastructure and health, education, services that really matter to us as a society, are neglected and starved of capital.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This article from the John Hopkins University experts in Chinese investment in Africa say the charges that China was setting up debt levels for African countries beyond sustainability levels set by IMF are not founded except in a few instances. Only in Congo, Zambia and Djibouti does China account for over half of public debt, says the report. This comes as criticism is mounting about African countries being burdened with debt from Chinese financing of projects and loans.

In 17 countries identified as vulnerable including Ethiopia and Cameroon, China was the largest creditor but yet more than half of the debt was held by western banks and other lenders. In Mozambique it was Credit Suisse bank. In other words China is not preying intentionally to put countries into financial distress from debt buildup.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Biden administration is pushing ahead with a new supply chain at a virtual two day meeting of 17 countries. In addition to the US and the European Union trade and economy ministers of Australia, Japan, South Korea, India, Singapore, Indonesia, will attend. It is an effort to build an alternative to the existing supply chain because of its dangerous dependence on China and Russia.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. ranked first in an annual survey of executives rating places with favorable prospects for foreign direct investment. The survey by consulting firm A.T. Kearney has questions for executives of 302 large companies, all with sales above $500 million, about how likely they are to invest in countries over 2013-2015. It was done in October and November of 2012. On a scale of 0 to 3, the U.S. scored 2.09, China 2.02, Brazil 1.97, Canada 1.86, India 1.85, followed closely by Australia and Germany at 1.83 and the UK at 1.81. Mexico and Singapore are at No. 9 and 10 with 1.77. The survey shows the U.S., and Mexico gaining, China and India slipping, and English speaking countries UK, Australia and Singapore, as part of the 6 that are English speaking of the top 10 countries. Brazil's hosting of the Olympics and World Cup helped it maintain its position. The emerging market countries performance has slipped further since the survey, including Brazil, and the U.S. has made further gains in investor sentiment. The unrest among young people in Turkey, India, China, and Brazil as seen in street protests and credit financed booms may have further affected investor sentiment. The increase in natural gas production, revival of the midwestern economies, and a recovering housing market have boosted the U.S. economic prospects compared to emerging markets and the eurozone....

LyrArc Article Gist
Chinese president Xi Jinping is learning from the country's Covid experience in the way Biden and Democrats learned from their initial push for tighter restrictions in 2020-2021. Most covid restrictions, quarantines, testing is being lifted in China and efforts are being made to stabilize the economy hurt by frequent lockdowns, and a new path is being taken that responds to the Covid lockdown fatigue of the people.  This will lower Chinese growth below the central bank forecast of 3.3% for 2023, yet it also offers a learning curve for the Chinese leadership and new government that was put in place after the CCP party congress in 2022. This may be experimental in the short run but offer benefits for China and the world in the long term. For the first time it means China's trade tensions with the US are turning the corner in a way no number of tariffs and rhetoric could do between the two countries. The evidence- China's exports to the US have declined by 25% already in the last few months. Exports to the EU have declined as well by 11%. China's trade surplus in November 2022 showed a drop to $70 billion from $85 billion in October. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ Editorial talks about so called "spending blowouts" of the Democrats in 2024. Are Republicans saying let the roads, bridges, airports, built in the 1940-1960's heyday of American industrialization as China and India's is now, let them crumble? What do the educated minds of the WSJ Board say about coal in China and India and their effects on their massive use multiple times that of US and EU in history, is it not damaging to the environment? And why the Chinese realized the health in North China with coal winter use was worse than in South China cut their coal use. Are they saying lets burn fossil fuels and ignore, and if investment has to be made in solar who is going to do it? Is it OK for Republicans that we just import from China all our solar panels indefinitely into the future? "Green New Deal" is just a perjorative term, policy has to be made thoughtfully and without prejudice or bias of any sort for the best that we can do for the American people, ignoring so called "right" or "left." Doing what is right, what makes sense, is a lot harder.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs good manufacturing jobs for the jobs and income that it brings into communities, and also because of the tax revenues from the companies making products in America that provide the basis for local governments to provide good public services in healthcare, education, and transportation. To say comparitive advantage that helped first Japanese and now Chinese manufacturers is real and how society gains is to deny some basic facts that are self evident from observation that contradict textbook ideas in economics. Comparitive Advantage is a textbook economics concept that says countries are proficient in what they make best and should specialize in that product. But it is a static concept that exists only in textbooks. If Japan in 1960, China in 1980 and India in 2000 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making steel and remained makers of lower end products such as footwear and textiles. If Japan in 1980, China in 2000, and India in 2020 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making semiconductors and remained makers of lower end products such as steel. A senior vice president of US Steel in the late 1960's even told this writer a graduate student at Northwestern in Chicago- as the US can make steel better than India or China let us keep making it for you. He and much of the business faculty at Northwestern also could not understand in 1970 why Airbus was being setup to compete with Boeing who by the concept of comparitive advantage should have had the whole market to itself for commercial aircraft . By this kind of thinking Airbus would not exist today because it did not have the lowest cost or the manufacturing technologies Boeing had through its vast manufacturing operation. America would be still the only one making aircraft in 2023 if textbook concepts ruled the day. By indirect methods such as hidden preferential arrangements, provision of inputs such as land, capital and labor, tax relief, the costs can be represented in a way that shows it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. The lack of a level playing field is what president Biden is correcting by doing what first Japan, then South Korea, then China and now India are doing since the 1960's. By 1974 in four years after its founding in 1970 Airbus came up with its first model the A-300 using advanced technologies. America will regain its leadership in the cost and manufacturing of many products through Biden policy and the efforts of American companies by 2030, and do this in a transformative way that will benefit the world as a whole.  It is an enormous error to say the US does not need good manufacturing jobs, that local governments do not need the tax revenues from manufacturing plants to build services for communities where manufacturing workers live, and the US does not need the manufacturing experience curve that leads to reduced costs. It is this loss of the manufacturing experience curve that is the most vital aspect for understanding the need for the US government to compete effectively with the governments of Asian countries to keep manufacturing healthy and strong at home. Economics experts ignorant of how important this science and engineering principle is fail to grasp this. Related to this is the idea of a virtuous cycle in manufacturing- whoever braves the hard years of moving up the learning and experience curve gets rewarded because once that country has mastered that skill it gets better an better as the technology advances- making it harder and harder to prevent a new monopoly in manufacturing by the country (Japan, China or Taiwan) that had the highest costs and the least advantage ten or 20 years earlier but just persevered through it all with the government's help to gain cost competitiveness. This part does not make it into the economics textbooks which are mostly theory and much of it outdated by the time they are written. Observation is the best teacher and guide as it is in science, to guide policy and action. Obsessive attachment to theory that ignores observation becomes the enemy of progress. Comparitive advantage is one concept that needs to be retired even from the textbooks. Overseas manufacturing then is a piece of the overall picture that fits into what is good for the US. Macroeconomic principles determine microeconomic outcomes as opposed to microeconomic principles with companies out on their own being forced to compete without a level playing field, or handing out technology for special status in a recipient country as some do putting the US at a macroeconomic disadvantage. This is also healthy for the recipient country overseas, as recrimination with loss of manufacturing jobs in the US inevitably leads to the kind of recrimination that does not serve either country well as in the case of China today, and worse still can lead to conflict, even war. After the egregious situation of loss of manufacturing communities across the US leading to destabilizing the social fabric, it is hard to see such thinking prevail about the US not needing manufacturing as a vital part of its social fabric and industrial strength. China, it can be said, would have developed, and developed well over the past two decades without overconcentration of US and EU manufacturing in China. Without aggravating the problems of climate change and contamination of air, land and water, and destabilizing the social fabric in the US hurting workers and communities across the US, if macroeconomic policy was made to manage this process in the US government without it being left entirely to individual companies to decide. Instead China faces today a difficult situation through events such as destabilizing the social fabric in the US (the Trump tariffs), advanced economies in G-7 resistance to sharing of technologies, the damage to its environment from microeconomic locally determined policy at individual companies, and the global effects of climate change from climate unsustainable levels of growth since 2000.  ...