FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

China’s Surge

by MARK WEISBROT

Various observers have noted this week that China’s economy will be bigger than that of the United States in 2016. This comes from the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) latest projections, which were made in its semi-annual April World Economic Outlook database. Since 2016 is just a few years away, and it will be the first time in more than a century that the United States will no longer be the world’s largest economy, this development will be the object of some discussion – from various perspectives.

First, let’s consider the economics. China has been the world’s fastest growing economy for more than three decades, growing 17-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since 1980. It is worth emphasizing that most of this record growth took place (1980-2000) while the rest of the developing world was doing quite badly by implementing neoliberal policy changes – indiscriminate opening to trade and capital flows, increasingly independent central banks, tighter (and often pro-cyclical) fiscal and monetary policies, and the abandonment of previously successful development strategies.

China clearly did not embrace these policy changes, which were promoted from Washington by institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and later the WTO. (China did not even join the WTO until 2002.) It is true that China’s growth acceleration included a rapid expansion of trade and foreign investment. But these were heavily managed by the state, to make sure that they fit in with the government’s development goals — quite the opposite of what happened in most other developing countries. China’s goals included producing for export markets, promoting higher levels of technology (with the goal of transferring technology from foreign enterprises to the domestic economy), hiring local residents for managerial and technical jobs, and not allowing foreign investments to compete with certain domestic industries.

China’s economy is still very much state-led, with the government controlling most of the financial system, the exchange rate, and about 44 percent of the assets of major industrial enterprises. That is why China was able to plow through the world recession with GDP growth of 9.8 percent, despite losing about 3.7 percentage points of GDP due to falling net exports.

Now for the politics and international implications. First, much of the discussion of China’s rise is written from a Washington perspective, that is, from the perspective of an empire. From this view, China’s rise is a “threat.” Since this view sees the supremacy of Washington and its allies as good for the world, China’s rise is also seen as a threat to the world. It is assumed that China will become an empire like the United States, but will not be so “benevolent” as the United States is.

This view is not supported by the facts. To take just current and recent history, it is the United States that invaded Iraq, leading to an estimated million deaths, is occupying Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan and Libya, and threatening Iran. The United States’ and its allies control over many developing countries’ economic policies, through the IMF, World Bank, and other institutions has also caused a lot of damage over the past few decades.

So a shift of power toward a more multi-polar world is likely to give us a more peaceful and just world. In fact, it is already happening: The majority of South America, for example, is now governed by democratic left governments that have produced positive reforms that benefit the majority – something that was practically impossible to achieve while Washington dominated the region. And of course the vast majority of people in the United States also stand to benefit from a smaller U.S. role in the world as we transition back to a Republic from an Empire: less spending on senseless wars, fewer casualties, fewer enemies, less distraction from our real problems at home.

China’s foreign policy is mainly geared toward securing the raw materials and trade that will fuel its growth and development. This is done through commercial transactions. Of course its corporations – like those of the rich countries – have come under criticism in various countries. But China does not try to tell other countries what their foreign policy towards other countries, or their overall economic policies, should be – as the United States often does. This is an important difference between a country that pursues its own national and economic interests, and an empire that seeks to impose its own order on the world.

It is always possible that China, once it becomes a rich country – and this is many years away – could develop imperial ambitions. But so far its leadership seems to see China as a developing country seeking to become a high-income country, and doesn’t see a role for empire in this process. “Hide brilliance, cherish obscurity,” as Chinese leader Deng Xioaping once said.

A few months ago press reports, using an exchange-rate measure of GDP, announced that China had become the world’s “second-largest economy” just this year. But by a purchasing-power-parity (PPP) measure, which adjusts for the difference in many prices between China and the U.S., China had become the second-largest economy years ago.

A technical matter: If we measure China’s economy in dollars at current exchange rates, it reached $5.9 trillion in 2010, as compared with $14.7 trillion for the U.S. By a purchasing-power-parity measure, its economy reached $10.1 trillion in 2010. It is that measure that the IMF projects to grow to $18.98 trillion in 2016, putting the U.S. in second place at $18.81 trillion.

However, it is likely that even the IMF’s PPP measure understates China’s GDP: Economist Arvind Subramanian has estimated that China’s PPP GDP in 2010 was already about even with that of the United States.

An IMF spokesperson, quoted yesterday by the Financial Times, weighed in on the debate:

“The IMF considers that GDP in purchase-power-parity (PPP) terms is not the most appropriate measure for comparing the relative size of countries to the global economy, because PPP price levels are influenced by non-traded services, which are more relevant domestically than globally ….The Fund believes that GDP at market rates is a more relevant comparison. Under this metric, the US is currently 130 percent bigger than China, and will still be 70 percent larger by 2016.”

It is true that the “market rate” measure is better for some comparisons. But one important place where the PPP measure is more relevant is in military spending. The cost of producing a military plane and training a pilot in China is much lower than in the United States. Washington’s current policy is to maintain military supremacy in Asia, but an arms race with China could make the Cold War look cheap by comparison. The Soviet Union’s economy was just a quarter of United States’ economy when we had that arms race. If the U.S. were to have a serious arms race with China, we could forget about Medicare, Social Security, and most of what our federal government spends money on.

Fortunately, a new Cold War with China is not in the cards for now. But the size of China’s economy is another good reason to make sure that it doesn’t happen.

MARK WEISBROT is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This column was originally published by The Guardian.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of the forthcoming book Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

February 09, 2016
Andrew Levine
Hillary Says the Darndest Things
Paul Street
Kill King Capital
Ben Burgis
Lesser Evil Voting and Hillary Clinton’s War on the Poor
Paul Craig Roberts
Are the Payroll Jobs Reports Merely Propaganda Statements?
Fran Quigley
How Corporations Killed Medicine
Ted Rall
How Bernie Can Pay for His Agenda: Slash the Military
Neve Gordon
Israeli Labor Party Adopts the Apartheid Mantra
Kristin Kolb
The Great Bear Rainforest Agreement? A Love Affair, Deferred
Joseph Natoli
Politics and Techno-Consciousness
Hrishikesh Joshi
Selective Attention to Diversity: the Case of Cruz and Rubio
Stavros Mavroudeas
Why Syriza is Sinking in Greece
David Macaray
Attention Peyton Manning: Leave Football and Concentrate on Pizza
Arvin Paranjpe
Opening Your Heart
Kathleen Wallace
Boys, Hell, and the Politics of Vagina Voting
Brian Foley
Interview With a Bernie Broad: We Need to Start Focusing on Positions and Stop Relying on Sexism
February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail