What's new

45 Trillion Reasons Why China Can't Challenge America’s Economic Might

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
16,980
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
There’s been tremendous amounts of discussion recently concerning the “Thucydides trap.” The trap occurs when the leading power becomes frightened of a rising power and war ultimately results. The candidates today who could spring such a trap are the United States and the People’s Republic of China, where Beijing is said to be rising and capable of threatening Washington’s global position.

Thankfully, there is an important weakness in this argument: China is not capable economically of threatening the U.S. It’s too early to be sure but Beijing may no longer even be catching up economically to Washington.

For the last 15 years, Credit Suisse has been compiling data on where global private wealth is located. The data do not perfectly capture a U.S.-China economic comparison but they do not need to, they just need to be just somewhere in the ballpark. The reason some imprecision is acceptable is the stunning size of the gap they show between the U.S. and China. As of the middle of 2015, Credit Suisse puts the stock of American private wealth as $85.9 trillion and Chinese private wealth at $22.8 trillion.

There are many things to be said about this but they all pale before the number itself. What notion of China as peer or genuine challenger stands up to a $63 trillion private wealth gap? What information can compensate for $63 trillion?

An obvious possibility is that Credit Suisse is just wrong. Compiling global wealth numbers is a considerable task. However, the series for wealth for both countries (and others) is both consistent and sensible over time. In addition, the Credit Suisse numbers for the U.S. are close to the Federal Reserve’s series on household net worth.

Calculating net private wealth for China is more difficult but Credit Suisse at least has the distinction of not being a tool of the Communist Party. Even if Chinese private wealth is underestimated by $10 trillion, it does not matter too much. China is still not in the same league as the U.S.

That’s the private sector, but perhaps China’s large public sector cuts deeply into the American advantage. Measuring public sector net assets involves such tasks as estimating the value of Chinese state-owned enterprises and U.S. federal land (as well as federal, state, and local debt). A rough calculation for the U.S. leaves mid-2015 net national wealth at over $73 trillion.

Chinese state-owned enterprises have very hefty assets. However, China’s debt is very high, has been rising rapidly, and is largely attributable to the public sector. Unlike the U.S., China’s net public sector position is positive but it is also deteriorating. Mid-2015 net national wealth for China is near $28 trillion. The more comprehensive, national wealth gap between the U.S. and China is $45-46 trillion, still a staggering amount.

Much of the talk about a Thucydides trap is driven by the idea that China, while much poorer on a per-person basis and not as advanced technologically, has in fact caught up economically. This somewhat odd claim is based heavily on the notion of gross domestic product (GDP) adjusted by purchasing power parity, as popularized by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

To be blunt, the comparison of the U.S. and China on the basis of GDP adjusted by purchasing power is fraudulent. The idea behind purchasing power parity is that the same good or service should have the same price in different markets, if the markets are open to competition. To apply this to the whole of China’s GDP requires that the vast bulk of transactions – not just consumption but also investment and government acquisitions – are conducted in open markets.

But the IMF itself does not believe this, correctly advising China for years to pursue pro-market reform. It is simply wrong to apply a purchasing power correction based on competitive markets to the whole of or even most of Chinese GDP. (This fundamental problem relegates to a secondary matter the very difficult task of calculating price levels for the U.S. and China in order to compare them.)

Since some transactions included in China’s GDP are conducted in competitive markets, it is reasonable to argue that a better measure of the annual GDP gap with the U.S. is $4 trillion or $5 trillion, rather than the $7 trillion indicated by using exchange rates for 2014. But a true global challenger also cannot be out-produced by trillions of dollars every year, on top of trailing by $45 trillion in national wealth.

If there is no Thucydides Trap now, what about in a decade or two? It is an article of faith for some that, however far behind China is economically, it is catching up fast. Official GDP growth rates would seem to confirm this, with even a slowing China’s still roughly 3 times faster than America’s.

One question, of course, is whether China’s official GDP reports can be trusted. The Communist Party does not like news of any sort that suggests instability. It is almost certain that economic data are smoothed by statistical authorities and, in the facing of slowing growth, GDP gains are currently being exaggerated to some unknown extent.

The extent of problems with Chinese government statistics is a controversial topic but it is possible to go a step further in examining the trend in comparative economic size. If annual GDP is made up of productive transactions, these should add to wealth over time. It would not occur on a 1:1 basis but, if China is really seeing a growth rate of productive transactions three times as fast as that in the U.S., the wealth gap should be closing or, at least, expanding at a slower rate.

Indeed, that is what happened last decade. The absolute size of the U.S.-China private wealth gap was about the same in 2009 as it was in 2000. And the ratio fell sharply from 9:1 to 3.4:1.

This decade, however, has been a completely, even shockingly different story. From end-2009 to mid-2015, the U.S-China wealth gap expanded by over $25 trillion. Even the wealth ratio has begun to rise, from a low of 3.1:1 in 2011 to 3.8:1. Five years is not definitive but it is also not trivial. China is presently falling behind in private wealth, suggesting that either its GDP growth has been exaggerated or it has been unproductive over this period.

It is unlikely that incorporating the public sector would change the recent trend. That’s because the single biggest source of China’s expanding debt was the 2009 loan stimulus, primarily consisting of state-owned banks lending far more to state-owned enterprises when their ability to repay was declining. At the same time China’s private wealth was falling further behind the U.S., its public sector asset position was being undermined.

The stark stimulus failure points to an obvious way for China to reverse the deteriorating wealth trend versus the U.S.: implement deep procompetitive reform. This is certainly possible but is not yet happening. Restrictions on labor movement will continue indefinitely, hurting the income prospects of ordinary people. The Party’s latest reform announcement indicates state sector is not to shrink, which enables more public debt accumulation and curbs private opportunities.

Inadequate reform at the moment is bad news for most Chinese. But the Thucydides Trap suggests it could be good news for most of the world. At $45 trillion smaller than the U.S. in national wealth, China is not an economic challenger in any meaningful sense. With that gap expanding considerably over the past five years and Chinese policy not yet on track, there is presently no prospect of China becoming a true economic challenger. No trap and no war risk from the trap.

45 Trillion Reasons Why China Can't Challenge America’s Economic Might | The National Interest Blog
 
. .
I agree China is a business man , why would they do something negative against their biggest consumer ?

However china do have right to protect their own national interest at Sea / Islands and other areas close to their own land

its natural impulse

Some of the most happiest consumers of Chinese products are of course Americans , and similarly some American products like Apple or thet Gopro camera are quite popular in China
 
. .
China isn't trying to challenge the US economically, simply because both nations rely on each other's economy doing well.

There is a very complex issue involved here. When a government is a dictatorship, it has to 'prove' its utility by achieving a great mission (like Pak generals seeking legitimacy by delivering Kashmir). CCP wants to prove its legitimacy by making China No.1 power in the world. Argument- only a dictatorship can make you No. 1. So they'll be in conflict with USA because it is democratic and is a stading example of a rival system leading over theirs.
 
.
China will never seek hegemony, expansion: Xi says
English.news.cn | 2015-09-03 10:21:50 | Editor: huaxia

BEIJING, Sept. 3 (Xinhua) -- President Xi Jinping stressed on Thursday that China will remain committed to peaceful development and will never seek hegemony or expansion.

"We Chinese love peace. No matter how much stronger it may become, China will never seek hegemony or expansion. It will never inflict its past suffering on any other nation," Xi said.

He was speaking at the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.









China will never seek hegemony, expansion: Xi says - Xinhua | English.news.cn
 
.
chinese are simply biding their time, waiting for a right opportunity. They are trying to slowly spread around the world from South america to africa. But with europe supporting US , china has no chance of taking on US.
Its does not hurt coming second but the issue is it still cannot be power on its own like US. Even with all the money and power their influence will be less compared to spend thrift US economy.

US is in a very envious position chinese work hard and americans enjoy without sweating. 8-)
 
.
"Private wealth" yes, because in China the largest corporations are owned by the Government.

But still it is hilarious, America is so far ahead yet they are crying and bitching constantly.

Russia is bombing IS? Oh no America are you going to cry again? :lol:

Absolutely disgusting. The guy with all the power crying constantly.
 
.
China has the most capability to threaten US. India has the most desire to be a superpower. India already claimed that in 10 years, ISRO will be ahead of NASA. In this regard, India could be a bigger threat as it has the desire..

"China has the most capability to threaten US. India has the most desire to be a superpower...but finally Pakistan China alliance will rule the world".
 
.
America creates wealth by innovation...Chinese companies innovating tech can be counted on single hand..any theory of a country beating US economic might for next 100 years is utter rubbish...anything which takes down US will also take down the global financial system..it will be total chaos and war...
 
.
"Private wealth" yes, because in China the largest corporations are owned by the Government.

But still it is hilarious, America is so far ahead yet they are crying and bitching constantly.

Russia is bombing IS? Oh no America are you going to cry again? :lol:

Absolutely disgusting. The guy with all the power crying constantly.

American discourse is more open to the world than China's. You tend to hear American society stream of consciousness while China controls its publicly available discourse.

Just shows America is constantly vigiliant.
 
.
There is a very complex issue involved here. When a government is a dictatorship, it has to 'prove' its utility by achieving a great mission (like Pak generals seeking legitimacy by delivering Kashmir). CCP wants to prove its legitimacy by making China No.1 power in the world. Argument- only a dictatorship can make you No. 1. So they'll be in conflict with USA because it is democratic and is a stading example of a rival system leading over theirs.

One of the dumbest things I've read about foreign affairs, thank you
 
.
62% of Americans Have Under $1,000 in Savings, Survey Finds

Having a savings fund is one of the keys to financial health. Yet trying to save is a struggle, especially because the biggest money challenge for Americans is sticking to a budget — a central skill to ensure enough money is left over each month to save.

To gauge how well Americans are saving, GOBankingRates conducted a survey that posed the question, “How much money do you have saved in your savings account?” The good news is that over half (51.3 percent — totaling all answers besides $0 and “I don’t have a savings account”) have at least something socked away in savings. But the survey findings also reveal that most Americans’ savings account balances are falling far short of where they should be.

“It’s worrisome that such a large percentage of Americans have so little set aside in a savings account,” said Cameron Huddleston, a personal finance expert and columnist for GOBankingRates. “It suggests that they likely don’t have cash reserves to cover an emergency and will have to rely on credit, friends, and family, or even their retirement accounts to cover unexpected expenses.”

Survey Finds Two-Thirds of Americans Don’t Have Enough Money Saved
overview-graph.jpg


The overall results from the survey show that 62 percent of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts, and a third of those under-savers have no savings account at all. The portion of savers with balances over $1,000 is 29.1 percent.

The most frequently selected amount that people say they have in savings is also the lowest $0; 28 percent of people selected this answer. Even worse, the next-most-common answer is “I don’t have a savings account,” selected by one in five people (20.7 percent).

Related: 10 Habits That Could Help Save You Thousands

Of people who have something in their savings accounts, the most common balance is $10,000 or more, a sign of financial health for those savers (14.2 percent). This amount is followed by 5 percent who have saved between $5,000 and $9,999, 9.9 percent who have saved $1,000 to $4,999, and 13 percent who have less than $1,000 in savings.

Another 9.2 percent of people say they keep just enough money in their savings accounts to meet the minimum balance requirements — a smart move that at least helps those depositors avoid maintenance fees. Minimum balance requirements can vary widely, however, and can be set relatively high compared with what most people are able to save. Bank of America, for example requires a minimum average balance of $1,500 a month to avoid its savings account fee, while Chase’s requirement is only $300.

Savings Account Balances by Age
age_graph.jpg


The survey shows some correlation between the balances of Americans’ savings accounts and their ages. For example, younger millennials (ages 18 to 24), known for their saving prowess, report having a smaller savings account balance of $1 to $4,999 more than other age groups. Older millennials (ages 25 to 34) — sometimes referred to as Generation Y — follow closely behind.

Generation X (ages 35 to 54), while being older and presumably more experienced with money, actually report a savings account balance of $0 (31 percent), which is the highest number of all age groups. Only 16 percent of Gen Xers report having savings of $10,000 or more.

Baby boomers (ages 55 to 64) and seniors (65 and up) have the most money saved of any age group, with a full 20 percent of those past retirement age reporting savings of $10,000 or more. Only 7.5 percent of younger millennials have this much money saved.

Read: Haven’t Turned 60 Yet? You Can Still Save $430,453 Before Retirement

Savings Trends by Gender
gender_graph.jpg


Overall, men and women report not having a savings account or having nothing in their savings accounts equally. Women are slightly more likely, however, to save a smaller amount of money, selecting the answers “less than $1,000″ or “just the minimum balance requirement” more often than their male counterparts.

While similar numbers of men and women report savings balances of $1,000 up to $9,999, 60 percent more men than women report a savings balance over $10,000 (16.4 percent to 10.4 percent, respectively).

Savings Balances by Income
income_graph.jpg


People with higher incomes tend to have higher savings account balances. Those making less than $75,000 a year report having $0 in savings more often than people who earn more money. This income group also reports lower balances like less than $1,000 or saving just the minimum required balance.

People earning $75,000 or more, however, are more likely to have more than $1,000 in their savings, and those earning at least $100,000 report having $10,000 or more in savings more than any other income group. While 27.7 percent of people earning more than $100,000 and 18.9 percent of people earning $75,000 to $99,999 report savings account balances of at least $10,000, about 20 percent of every income group earning less than $100,000 report having no savings.

What to Do If Your Savings Fall Short
If you’re in the majority that has less than $1,000 in savings, you already know that it’s hard to start saving. “I recognize that it can be tough to save money,” Huddleston said. But that’s exactly the reason you need to be proactive and actively work to make a change with your savings, she said.

“[P]eople should automate their savings — have a certain amount automatically transferred from checking to savings each month,” Huddleston said. “If the money comes out before you can spend it, you likely won’t even miss it.”

Keep Reading: What You Should Do With Your Money Before 2015 Ends

Methodology: This survey and the findings reported above are the results of a Google Consumer Survey conducted from Sept. 11-13, 2015, which collected 5,006 responses. The survey posed the question, “How much money do you have saved in your savings account?” and provided the following as possible answers: $0, “just the minimum balance requirement,” less than $1,000, $1,000-$4,999, $5,000-$9,999, $10,000 or more, and “I don’t have a savings account.” The responses are representative of the U.S. internet population, with a margin of error within 1.70 percent. Demographic information was not available for all respondents, and analysis of responses by demographics is based solely on responses for which the targeted demographic information was available.




if you can understand the charts below, then you will understand that the decline of US economy has nothing to do with China, it is his own porblems:
20151013150616156.jpg
20151013150816530.jpg
20151013151141510.gif
20151013151141917.png
20151013151356400.jpg
20151013151520473.png
20151014011024464.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20151013150824777.jpg
    20151013150824777.jpg
    30.4 KB · Views: 16
. . .
Back
Top Bottom