5 ms·

These same tired arguments were being made back in 2005, and given the utter lack of any sort of critical analysis backing them I predict they'll be just as wro

by austinz 13y ago

These same tired arguments were being made back in 2005, and given the utter lack of any sort of critical analysis backing them I predict they'll be just as wrong now as they were back then.

jusben1369 13y ago
I wasn't making the argument in 2005 so that comment isn't very helpful. I'll assume you're just focused on the Chinese piece in your acerbic reply. http://qz.com/160091/china-puts-out-yet-another-credit-market-fire-with-more-liquidity/ http://qz.com/160091/china-puts-out-yet-another-credit-marke... "China’s highly-leveraged and opaque financial system ranks high on the list of threats to global growth" Or this that shows the recent problems: http://qz.com/72487/shadow-banking-brought-america-to-its-knees-and-now-its-growing-like-crazy-in-china/ http://qz.com/72487/shadow-banking-brought-america-to-its-kn... Finally this two days ago in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/business/international/china-in-push-to-rein-in-lending-practices.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/business/international/chi... "Official bank lending has more than doubled since the global financial crisis, growing nearly twice as fast as the overall economy. The even bigger problem, however, appears to come from the rise of a shadow banking system that has allowed a number of companies and individuals, often with political connections, to borrow from state-controlled banks at low interest rates and relend the money at much higher rates to private businesses desperate for credit at almost any price."
- austinz 13y ago
  In 2005 the bogeyman was local government borrowing. In the late 1990s it was bad loans to SOEs that were going to collapse the Chinese banking system. You need to realize that the articles you are citing aren't based upon any sort of substantive analysis. They're based on pundits and consultancy reports basically taking the same arguments they've used in the past (scale, opacity, interlocking interests) and fitting them with new buzzwords, without taking into account why they were wrong in the past or how conditions now are different from before.
  - jusben1369 13y ago
    Looks like that first bogeyman is back: Front page today: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-china-economy-debt-idUSBRE9BT09M20131230 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-china-economy-d... "(Reuters) - Calls for China to accelerate financial reforms grew louder on Monday after figures showed its indebted local governments owe nearly $3 trillion in a debt build-up that some analysts called alarming."
    - austinz 13y ago
      And here's another set of 'analysts' from 2011 addressing the same problem from the opposite angle: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/06/sovereign-debt http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/06/sovereig... Point being, you can find 'analysts' on every side of this particular argument, and unless you're an intellectually dishonest ideologue the best thing to do is to look at the facts and read their analyses critically.
      - jusben1369 13y ago
        I thought you might like this too. Where China is addressed toward the end of this document: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/george-soros-maps-the-terrain-of-a-global-economy-that-is-increasingly-shaped-by-china http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/george-soros-map...
        austinz 13y ago
        Thanks, all articles you posted were interesting reads. I wonder what economists and historians 500 years from now will think of our current models...

by austinz 13y ago

These same tired arguments were being made back in 2005, and given the utter lack of any sort of critical analysis backing them I predict they'll be just as wrong now as they were back then.

jusben1369 13y ago

I wasn't making the argument in 2005 so that comment isn't very helpful. I'll assume you're just focused on the Chinese piece in your acerbic reply. http://qz.com/160091/china-puts-out-yet-another-credit-market-fire-with-more-liquidity/ http://qz.com/160091/china-puts-out-yet-another-credit-marke... "China’s highly-leveraged and opaque financial system ranks high on the list of threats to global growth" Or this that shows the recent problems: http://qz.com/72487/shadow-banking-brought-america-to-its-knees-and-now-its-growing-like-crazy-in-china/ http://qz.com/72487/shadow-banking-brought-america-to-its-kn... Finally this two days ago in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/business/international/china-in-push-to-rein-in-lending-practices.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/business/international/chi... "Official bank lending has more than doubled since the global financial crisis, growing nearly twice as fast as the overall economy. The even bigger problem, however, appears to come from the rise of a shadow banking system that has allowed a number of companies and individuals, often with political connections, to borrow from state-controlled banks at low interest rates and relend the money at much higher rates to private businesses desperate for credit at almost any price."

austinz 13y ago
In 2005 the bogeyman was local government borrowing. In the late 1990s it was bad loans to SOEs that were going to collapse the Chinese banking system. You need to realize that the articles you are citing aren't based upon any sort of substantive analysis. They're based on pundits and consultancy reports basically taking the same arguments they've used in the past (scale, opacity, interlocking interests) and fitting them with new buzzwords, without taking into account why they were wrong in the past or how conditions now are different from before.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  Looks like that first bogeyman is back: Front page today: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-china-economy-debt-idUSBRE9BT09M20131230 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-china-economy-d... "(Reuters) - Calls for China to accelerate financial reforms grew louder on Monday after figures showed its indebted local governments owe nearly $3 trillion in a debt build-up that some analysts called alarming."
  - austinz 13y ago
    And here's another set of 'analysts' from 2011 addressing the same problem from the opposite angle: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/06/sovereign-debt http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/06/sovereig... Point being, you can find 'analysts' on every side of this particular argument, and unless you're an intellectually dishonest ideologue the best thing to do is to look at the facts and read their analyses critically.
    - jusben1369 13y ago
      I thought you might like this too. Where China is addressed toward the end of this document: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/george-soros-maps-the-terrain-of-a-global-economy-that-is-increasingly-shaped-by-china http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/george-soros-map...
      - austinz 13y ago
        Thanks, all articles you posted were interesting reads. I wonder what economists and historians 500 years from now will think of our current models...