Emerging Hangover

It will take more than BRICS to build the post-American economy.

BY KATI SUOMINEN | APRIL 19, 2011

As the economic crisis fades in the rearview mirror, some analysts on Wall Street and in Washington expect the world economy to enter a supercycle, a prolonged global growth spurt powered by the emerging markets. This isn't just some fringe theory: The "Super-Cycle Report" by Standard Chartered Bank posits that world GDP will double in the next two decade as a result of "industrialization and urbanization of emerging markets and global trade." The sentiment was widely shared among the attendees of the latest World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and among such heavyweights as Goldman Sachs and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Emerging markets, rising to make up half the world economy by 2017, are expected to pull the sluggish, debt-laden advanced economies -- United States, Europe, and Japan -- along. In this bifurcated world, the emerging juggernauts such as China, South Korea, and India will decouple from the advanced nations, relegating the mantra "when the U.S. economy sneezes, the world catches a cold" to the ash heap of history.

But last week's IMF governors' spring meetings and the G-20 finance ministerial in Washington tell a very different story. Rather than celebrating a global liftoff, countries are wrestling with familiar global letdowns, from deepening global imbalances to China's currency manipulation and soaring U.S. public deficits. The depressingly familiar policy agenda belies the supercycle hype. Rather, it suggests that emerging economies remain unsafe from flu in America and unable to power the world economy on their own.

Granted, emerging markets are due to grow almost thrice as fast as the advanced economies in 2011, according to IMF forecasts. They seem light-years away from the massive debts, currency crashes, and hyperinflation of the 1980s and 1990s. Now armed with historic reserves and led by pragmatists rather than populists, they appear stable and sound. Their corporations are globalizing; their financial markets are growing sophisticated; and with a few exceptions, their politics look orderly, with regular transitions of power instead of the coups and chaos of past decades. For all the gripes about the "Washington Consensus," developing countries have more or less followed its prescriptions and gained dramatic health benefits.

But the idea of a supercycle driven by emerging economies is tenuous. The American consumer is still the pivot of the world economy. IMF research shows that consumer demand in emerging economies is too limited to offset dips in U.S. consumption. At about half of GDP, China's savings rate is among the world's highest. Beijing's glossy new five-year plan promises to expand household spending power, but consumption, now at some 36 percent of GDP, will in the best of scenarios rise to only 45 to 50 percent of GDP between now and 2025, well below that of advanced nations and such emerging economies as Brazil and Mexico. Similar trends hold across emerging East Asia. No wonder regional governments stick to their export-led growth models and keep their currencies artificially devalued, paying lip service to the G-20 rebalancing agenda.

Add to this rising oil and commodity prices, and global imbalances are heading toward their pre-crisis levels, risking trade protectionism and a new global economic crash. No one would escape such a debacle; rather than diverging, the fortunes of the emerging and advanced economies are converging. Their trade and financial ties are deepening, and their business cycles have only become more coupled: The correlation of advanced- and emerging-market outputs has tripled over the past decade. Emerging markets weathered the crisis not because they were decoupled from the advanced nations but because of their reserve buffers and improved macroeconomic fundamentals.

Stephen Jaffe/IMF via Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: ECONOMICS, GLOBALIZATION
 

Kati Suominen is a resident fellow at the Washington-based German Marshall Fund of the United States. Her latest books are the forthcoming Peerless and Periled: The Future of America's World Economic Order and, with Gary Hufbauer, Globalization of Risk: Challenges to Finance and Trade.

ANON49

2:27 AM ET

April 20, 2011

The US won't be irrelevant.

I don't think anyone worth their salt is saying the US will become irrelevant to the world economy (aside from a WW2 scale destruction of all infrastructure). The US has the 3rd largest population in the world and a good slice of a large selection of resources, including Food production. We will have a large inpact on the world, even if we don't have the same utterly unprecedented (in history) clout in the worll we had after WW2.

It's also certainly true that the US is a consumer society at its heart. Our very history was built on these roots, our economy rose on these roots (not exports), and our economy might die on these roots, but it won't change significantly.

Our country's position on the worldmap is a General's wet dream when it comes to defence, and a trader's wet dream when it comes to world access. We are destined to play a large role on the planet for as long as we are a country. Yes, it is our destiny.

 

MARTY MARTEL

9:53 AM ET

April 20, 2011

China is building post-American economy

It is NOT BRICS, it is China that is single-handedly building post-American economy.

With its three trillion and counting foreign exchange reserves, China has become a lender of last resort for many a companies and many a countries in the world, thanks to WTO liberalization.

Sooner or later, the debtors and especially U. S. have to say enough is enough and NO more to this ever-increasing Chinese accumulation of forex reserves.

Afterall China is NOT going to voluntarily give up this enormous trade advantage that it enjoys with so many countries in the world as everyone knows.

It is thanks to WTO that China is rearranging the distribution of world’s wealth.

A day of reckoning has to dawn on debtor countries what a havoc WTO has wrecked on world’s finances although it is too late for them to be able to do anything about it.

By wearing a capitalist mask, Chinese Communists have beaten capitalists at their own game. Lenin used to say that ‘capitalists will sell us the ropes with which we will hang them’. China’s Communists with capitalist mask have proved that Lenin saying quite prophetic.

Let us thank the genius of Nixon-Kissinger for embracing China’s Communist dragon to counter Russia’s Soviet bear in 1972 that provided China with such ‘proverbial ropes‘.

Afterall China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until Nixon’s 1972 visit. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting.

Had it not been for that Nixon embrace in 1972, China’s rise as an economic powerhouse would have been far more slower with all the US, West European and East Asian markets closed to cheap Chinese products. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s technological progress would have been far slower in the absence of West’s technology transfers. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s military progress would have been far slower in the absence of huge forex reserves that China accumulated from the massive exports of cheap Chinese products and China used those forex reserves to acquire latest military technology.

 

COMETLINEAR

6:55 PM ET

April 20, 2011

Excellent comment

...although I don't necessary agree with all of it.

As an American, I don't particularly fear China. I understand China is a culture which is distinct from ours. China is arguably the oldest civilization, although this is obviously open to debate. Anyway...

Traveling abroad, I've never met an unfriendly Chinese person. They have always been very happy to meet an American. Let us build the future together.

 

ZORRO

5:39 PM ET

April 20, 2011

We're doomed then

The likelihood of the US balancing it's budget without a major financial crisis is somewhere between zero and nil.

 

COMETLINEAR

6:58 PM ET

April 20, 2011

Indeed

...because it would require our politicians to commit political suicide and acknowledge the reality: that taxes inevitably need be raised to pay off our debt.

 

ASJIBRASDA

2:53 AM ET

May 11, 2011

Afterall China was a pariah

Afterall China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until Nixon’s 1972 visit. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?)movies to watch online unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981.

 

MAC THELIN

6:54 AM ET

May 19, 2011

The US has the 3rd largest

The US has the 3rd largest population in the world and a good slice of a large selection of resources, including Food production. We will have a large inpact on the world, even if we don't have the same utterly unprecedented (in history) clout in the worll we had after WW2.It's also certainly true that the US is a consumer society at its heart. Our very history was built on these roots, our economy rose on these roots (not exports), and our economy might die on these roots, but it won't change significantly.