3 ms·
The user cwan nailed the general failures of Japan's economic policy in the 90s, although the root of the problems extends farther back in time than even the Ec
by loganfrederick 17y ago
The user cwan nailed the general failures of Japan's economic policy in the 90s, although the root of the problems extends farther back in time than even the Economist article covers.
Back in the 70s, Japan's rise as a world economic power was fueled by government loans to private industry, allowing banks to fund abnormally large investments in industries, specifically manufacturing and technology, which helped support the rise of the global Japanese brands (Honda, Sony, etc).
These same funds also helped inflate the massive real estate bubble the article briefly covers by selling the concept of the limited real estate space in Japan. What investors in Japanese real estate failed to realize is that even though there is a limited space in Japan, there is an unlimited price that a given piece of land may be valued at but a limited price that it can be intrinsically worth compared to the value of all other assets (hence the overinflated valuations of the properties).
For a long time (70s and 80s), Japanese companies made solid progress in commanding global sectors, and their auto companies still do. However, the loans became so large and the earnings generated by the firms eventually declined to levels where the loan payments could not be made. The subsequent bank write-offs on all assets were the cause and/or effect (really a self-perpetuating vicious cycle).
I cover these to give a positive spin on the United States situation. While the government has made a number of mistakes in regulating the banking industry and partially inflating the housing sector, it has not tried to directly inflate the economy to the scale the Japanese government did in the 70s. The United States government is propping up some American industries, but again, not to the extent of the Japanese government in the 90s. If that were the case, they absolutely would not have let Lehman Brothers fail. The government is in a tough position, trying to prevent political and economic chaos while allowing markets to reach their own equilibriums.
For anyone who fears the China may be catching the United States economy, there is a good amount of evidence that China may be suffering the same syndrome Japan had in the 70s (building its economy based on government money). China will likely deal with the problem more efficiently once a bust occurs, but it does mean that China could be less of a threat than many suspect, assuming the United States is able to innovate at a reasonable rate.
Here is a decent article/example of what I am talking about with China: http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/09/petrochinas-sugar-daddy-gets-30-billion-for-takeovers/ http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/09/petrochinas-sugar-d...
- nostrademons 17y agoI'm curious if you have numbers on the relative size of U.S. government loans to dysfunctional industries vs. Japanese loans. Just based on employment, it seems like a large number of realtors/autoworkers/bankers/construction workers are working at firms that economically shouldn't exist.
- cwan 17y agoOne additional note that I'd also make is that intercompany shareholdings (keiretsu used to promote stability and prevent takeovers) were in essence financed by the government and in turn made the mess even more difficult to ultimately deal with given the incestuous crossholdings and restructure firms. I agree with you on the obstacles facing China to becoming a superpower which are far greater than others imagine. Working there, you see how inefficiently resource allocation has been for state owned enterprises which in turn have propped up stock prices and real estate. How they're able to deal with any bust politically is what scares me. The government is already largely hated/strongly disliked in many quarters (there are many who have long memories not to mention the obvious and very visible corruption). It bears mention that that China liberalized not because they wanted to, but because they had no choice given how poor their people were. When the bust happens, the increased civil unrest and the government's overriding resolve to maintain power will be a volatile combination - one that Japan didn't have to deal with. I also agree that the parallel of Japan seems more relevant to China than the US. China's non performing assets in their banking sector has likely grown quite significantly with the push for lending in the last year. The average Chinese aren't stupid either - which makes it a potential catastrophe if certain world leaders get their wish that the RMB is allowed to float. Capital will rush out of China and its domestic banks causing a financial crisis and ironically potentially a RMB that is worth substantially less than it is today.
- nazgulnarsil 17y agoinefficient resource allocation is an intrinsic property of central planning and is the main balancing force to economies of scale that drive organizations to become larger. this eventually results in the "smaller companies eating their lunch" phenomenon that we love so much. of course with government customers couldn't traditionally just "go elsewhere". this is showing signs of changing (lichtenstein, switzerland, hong kong, singapore, etc.).