Global Recession and the United States

In his column at Bloomberg Noah Smith warns of the potential impact of an economic slowdown in China on the world economy:

In order to weather the Great Recession, China shifted its focus from export-oriented manufacturing to domestic real estate and infrastructure, and from private companies to state-owned enterprises. That probably caused productivity growth to slow. Meanwhile, China’s working-age population is now shrinking and its supply of surplus rural labor has dried up. Retooling its economy to produce less pollution and cut greenhouse emissions will slow growth as well, even if the long-term environmental effect is worth it.

But it’s not just a Chinese recession that threatens the world economy. The trade war, along with looming geopolitical tensions between the great powers, are threatening to open a rift between China and the rest of the world economy. Tariffs have global manufacturers scrambling to move production from China to countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. Companies, both Chinese and otherwise, are being forced to decide whether to consolidate their supply chains inside China or go elsewhere.

This decoupling will probably be protracted, and costly. The past 30 years have seen the construction of a global trading system centered around a China-U.S. axis, and now that structure is breaking down. In addition to the cost of reorganizing supply chains and the economic inefficiency introduced by the separation, companies are facing deep uncertainty about where they will be able to source their inputs and sell their products.

Through some creative cherry-picking and proof by innuendo he points to the adverse effect that a Chinese recession would have on the U. S. economy.

The reality is somewhat different. 70% of the U. S. economy consists of personal consumption expenditures, i.e. retail, health care, education, and houses. That’s a much larger role than in Europe or China. Exports just aren’t that important to us. Exports to China could go to zero and its effect on the U. S. economy would be minor.

My story of the last 40 years would be somewhat different from Mr. Smith’s. Since 1979 China’s economy has grown, like the Soviet Union’s before it, by moving labor assets from relatively non-productive agriculture to more productive manufacturing. In the process hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted from the direst of poverty. Due to distortions in the Chinese economy much of that has been at the expense of workers in the U. S. and Europe.

What would have happened without those distortions? I think the Chinese economy would have grown faster and not at the expense of workers here. Mr. Smith apparently believes otherwise.

China has reached the end of its ability to increase productivity using the strategy that has served it for the last 40 years due to limits on its ability to improve agricultural productivity, its policy of food independence, a declining working age population, and other factors. Additionally, both here and in Europe we’ve gotten fed up with China’s misbehavior.

Europe is much more exposed to a Chinese recession than we are. While it is likely true that when China sneezes, Europe, Germany in particular, gets a cold. It is not nearly as true that a Chinese recession will inevitably spread to the United States.

An end to the present U. S. economic recovery is inevitable. We will go into recession again. I don’t know when it will be and neither does anyone else. But a recession here is less likely to be triggered by a slowdown in China than practically anywhere else in the world.

12 comments… add one
  • Andy Link

    We may not be as exposed, but I suspect we’re exposed enough.

    Politically, I’m surprised I haven’t seen more people in the anti-Trump camp hoping for a recession so he will lose the election.

  • Total U. S. exports fo China of goods and services are $180 billion. That’s of a $19 trillion economy. That’s .95% of the U. S. economy that would be lost if exports to China went to zero. That is not a lot of exposure.

    That’s the risk of China’s mercantilist strategy. They’re a lot more dependent on us than we are on them.

  • steve Link

    Andy- I have seen that sentiment expressed, but not nearly as widely as i have expected. Maybe we will see it more when the election is closer.

    Dave-It might not affect us that much directly, but it seems likely there would be indirect effects from a slowdown in Europe.

    Steve

  • it seems likely there would be indirect effects from a slowdown in Europe

    Again, not as much as you might think. Our biggest export trading partners are Canada and Mexico. Our aggregate exports to Europe are slightly larger than our exports to China but not a great deal.

  • TarsTarkas Link

    Andy & Steve: The talking heads and the newspapers certainly all seem to be screaming ‘The recession is coming, the recession is coming, no it’s already here! Growth slowed in the second quarter! We’re doomed!” (As you know an ‘official’ recession is called when we have two quarters of a contracting economy. We haven’t even had one yet). Many seem to be actually thirsting for an economic crash in order to get Orange Man Bad. Wanting people to lose their jobs, firms to close, breadlines to assemble? Because of a political dispute? Or because you got mean-tweeted? That’s stupid, sophomoric, and evil. Grow up. Start thinking and acting like adults and stop emulating the President’s worst habits.

  • ROBERT SYKES Link

    Information Processing posted a YouTube of Bruno Maçães talk on China:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1096&v=09MaIq-bx1I

    Maçães visited the factory where Huawei makes the P30 smart phone. This is a highly automated factory that uses only a dozen or so workers to produce one smart phone every 20 seconds or so. Three years ago, the same factory had 140 workers.

    The point is that China has ultra modern factories (more so than we), and it no longer relies on wage differentials to gain competitive advantage. Companies that decide to transfer production to other countries are going to encounter costs that are substantially higher than China’s, highly unreliable supply chains (which require very intelligent operators), and poor product quality. They went through that learning curve once with China. It will be interesting to see is any American company retains the institutional memory of that transition.

    Once again, I see that people are arguing that our exports to China are trivial (which launched the current trade war), and that China will suffer more than we do.

    That “we” is the aggregate Ruling Class “we.” Our farmers are very vulnerable to Chinese boycotts, but that’s only 2% of Americans. Who cares?

    Similar arguments wrecked our industrial base. Illinois might actually be able to pay some of those pensions, if it still had a thriving industrial sector.

  • The point is that China has ultra modern factories (more so than we), and it no longer relies on wage differentials to gain competitive advantage. Companies that decide to transfer production to other countries are going to encounter costs that are substantially higher than China’s, highly unreliable supply chains (which require very intelligent operators), and poor product quality.

    Yes, it is truly amazing what can be done with capital investment and it is even more amazing how much capital investment authoritarian countries can muster.

    I don’t have much sympathy for the Apples, GEs, and Dells. Capital investment and supply chain decisions come with risks that should be borne by the companies.

  • TastyBits Link

    China’s problem is its domestic monetary/financial system is dollar dependent. Dollar denominated securities for leverage, and leveraging financial assets is how a Modern Monetary System grows.

    As with most global trade, they rely on dollars as the basis for payments.
    Trade with Europe is a little different due to the trade-deficit euros held outside of Europe. Like Fed interest rate targets, the value of the yuan is vastly overrated.

    A non-dollar related problem is their financial system is over-leveraged, and banks are beginning to fail. Like the US and Europe, this can be supported with exotic monetary engineering, but while it can last a lot longer than anybody can imagine, it cannot last forever.

    (Purchasing Venezuelan bonds purchased with dollars is not a solution. If it were, the Zimbabwean dollar would be the global trade currency.)

    Ultra modern factories should have been built in the US long ago. The technology has been around for at least 20 years, and with the additive process, the potential jumped ahead by an order of magnitude.

    For all you “the manufacturing jobs are gone forever” people, cottage weaving jobs are never returning, either. Yes, the manufacturing jobs of the 1970’s are never coming back, and the products of the 1970’s are never coming back. I realize that you all are the ‘smartest people in the whole wide world’, but really, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.

  • cottage weaving jobs are never returning, either

    Amazingly, genuine Harris or Donegal tweed fabric are still the products of cottage weaving. Expensive, as you might imagine.

    That’s a good comment, TastyBits and I endorse it. It’s astonishing to me that more people don’t realize that transportation costs are going to overwhelm Chinese manufacturing in time. What made the Chinese miracle possible was the container ship and containerization more generally.

  • TastyBits Link

    Indian coders were supposed to be ‘the best thing since sliced bread’, but for every American programmer they eliminated, they were replaced by two managers.

    Years ago, my company decided to join the revolution, and it turned out the way I predicted. Of course, the correct answer is not always the best one.

  • Indian coders were supposed to be ‘the best thing since sliced bread’, but for every American programmer they eliminated, they were replaced by two managers.

    I don’t know what your experience has been but mine is rather similar to Boeing’s: when you hire a $7/hour programmer you get a programmer who’s worth $7/hour. Making up for that requires a tremendous amount of oversight which many companies are unwilling to implement. It would eat into the assumed profits too much. So you get planes that crash.

  • TastyBits Link

    Same here.

Leave a Comment