oldreliable67
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- 1,102
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Most observers are aware that many, if not most of the world's emerging markets are experiencing a resurgence of growth, while that of the industrialized countries has languished by comparison.
In an interesting Bloomberg opinion piece, China Drains Obama Stimulus Meant For U.S. Economy, Andy Xie (independent economist based in Shanghai; formerly Morgan Stanley’s chief economist for the Asia- Pacific region) posits that the Obama U.S. economic stimulus has, like water, run downhill and benefited emerging markets much more than it has the U.S. To wit:
"Just as water flows down, stimulus affects low-cost economies more, wherever it is initiated. As the West pours money into the global economy through large fiscal deficits or central banks expanding balance sheets, the emerging economies are drowning in excess liquidity. Everything is turning red-hot."
The core of the problem, though, he says, in a lack of competitiveness:
"What really ails the West is declining competitiveness. Globalization is pitting the Wangs in China or Gandhis in India against the Smiths in the U.S. or Gonzalezes in Spain.
Multinationals such as General Electric Co. or Siemens AG decide on whom to hire. The Wangs and the Gandhis offer productivity but have little money. So they are willing to accept low wages to accumulate wealth. The Smiths and the Gonzalezes have wealth and won’t accept Third World wages. When their governments give them money to spend, their demand just makes the Wangs and the Gandhis richer and themselves poorer with rising national debt.
The West must wait for the Wangs and the Gandhis to become rich enough so that they demand Western wages and spend like the Smiths and Gonzalezes."
This is an interesting less-than-mainstream analysis. What do you make of it?
In an interesting Bloomberg opinion piece, China Drains Obama Stimulus Meant For U.S. Economy, Andy Xie (independent economist based in Shanghai; formerly Morgan Stanley’s chief economist for the Asia- Pacific region) posits that the Obama U.S. economic stimulus has, like water, run downhill and benefited emerging markets much more than it has the U.S. To wit:
"Just as water flows down, stimulus affects low-cost economies more, wherever it is initiated. As the West pours money into the global economy through large fiscal deficits or central banks expanding balance sheets, the emerging economies are drowning in excess liquidity. Everything is turning red-hot."
The core of the problem, though, he says, in a lack of competitiveness:
"What really ails the West is declining competitiveness. Globalization is pitting the Wangs in China or Gandhis in India against the Smiths in the U.S. or Gonzalezes in Spain.
Multinationals such as General Electric Co. or Siemens AG decide on whom to hire. The Wangs and the Gandhis offer productivity but have little money. So they are willing to accept low wages to accumulate wealth. The Smiths and the Gonzalezes have wealth and won’t accept Third World wages. When their governments give them money to spend, their demand just makes the Wangs and the Gandhis richer and themselves poorer with rising national debt.
The West must wait for the Wangs and the Gandhis to become rich enough so that they demand Western wages and spend like the Smiths and Gonzalezes."
This is an interesting less-than-mainstream analysis. What do you make of it?