The news that China has surpassed Japan as the world’s second-largest economy has generated a lot of attention. It shouldn’t. There are roughly 10 times as many people in China as there are in Japan, so the fact that total gross domestic product in China is now bigger than total gross domestic product in Japan is hardly a sign of Chinese economic supremacy. Yes, China has been growing in recent decades, but it’s almost impossible not to grow when you start at the bottom – which is where China was in the late 1970s thanks to decades of communist oppression and mismanagement. And the growth they have experienced certainly has not been enough to overtake other nations based on measures that compare living standards. According to the World Bank, per capita GDP (adjusted for purchasing power parity) was $6,710 for China in 2009, compared to $33,280 for Japan (and $46,730 for the U.S.). If I got to choose where to be a middle-class person, China certainly wouldn’t be my first pick.
This is not to sneer at the positive changes in China. Hundreds of millions of people have experienced big increases in living standards. Better to have $6,710 of per capita GDP than $3,710. But China still has a long way to go if the goal is a vibrant and rich free-market economy. The country’s nominal communist leadership has allowed economic liberalization, but China is still an economically repressed nation. Economic Freedom of the World ranks China 82 out of 141, just one spot above Russia, and the Index of Economic Freedom has an even lower score, 140 out of 179 nations.
Hopefully, China will continue to move in the right direction. As Jonah Goldberg notes in his Townhall column, it is good for America to have China become a more prosperous nation.
Yes, technically, China’s gross domestic product is now slightly ahead of Japan’s. But GDP is a gross statistic. It doesn’t tell you nearly as much as you might think. In a very real way, China is still poorer than Japan. It’s also poorer than Tunisia, Ecuador, Gabon, Kazakhstan and Namibia. …China still has enormous problems, many of which aren’t reflected in its GDP growth rates, and without democracy, a free press and the rule of law, we can’t know what all of the problems are until they explode (and neither can the Chinese). But all of this misses the most important point. Economic “competitiveness” is a con. It assumes that when other countries prosper, America loses. That’s nonsense. If the average Chinese worker were as rich as the average Japanese worker, it would be an economic windfall for the United States. Conversely, if China’s economy imploded tomorrow, we would “gain” competitively but suffer economically. The cult of competitiveness is just a ruse used to justify the ambitions of economic planners and the pundits who worship them.
[…] wrote many years ago that China did not have a “tiger […]
[…] wrote many years ago that China did not have a “tiger […]
[…] readers know that I periodically pour cold water on the notion that China is an economic […]
[…] I first wrote back in 2010, China is a paper tiger. Yes, there was some pro-market reform last century, which helped reduce […]
[…] wrote way back in 2010 that Americans don’t need to fear the “Chinese Tiger, and it seems I’m not the […]
[…] don’t think there’s any danger of that nation becoming an economic powerhouse (a point I first made back in 2010). At least not until and unless President Xi has the wisdom to allow a second wave of […]
[…] that Schwab thinks it’s a good idea to move halfway toward the decrepit Chinese model of cronyism and industrial […]
[…] As a result, China only ranks #113 according to Economic Freedom of the World. Which makes the Chinese tiger a paper tiger. […]
[…] Three years ago, I wrote that China needs a Reagan-style revolution of economic liberalization. That’s still true today. The bottom line is that China’s leaders should look at the progress that was achieved last century when the economy was partially liberalized and decide that the time is ripe for the free-market version of a great leap forward. In other words, the goal should be great economic success, not modest economic success. […]
[…] bottom line is that the country can become a genuine “Chinese Tiger” rather than a “paper tiger” with the right […]
The one thing China got right is the fact that they do not have a capital gains tax.
[…] I was making the same criticisms even when China’s economy was perceived as a big success. I wrote in 2010 that America didn’t need to fear the supposed Chinese economic tiger. I pointed out in 2011 […]
[…] some of what I wrote back in […]
[…] bad news is that China still has a long way to go if it wants to become a rich, market-oriented nation. Notwithstanding big gains since 1980, it […]
[…] bad news is that China still has a long way to go if it wants to become a rich, market-oriented nation. Notwithstanding big gains since 1980, it […]
[…] I wrote back in 2010 that we shouldn’t fear the supposed Chinese tiger and the new numbers in the Index […]
“Thus we ask: What steps can be taken by the United States and China to reduce tensions, promote trust, and widen the basis for cooperation?”
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Mel-Gurtov/4052
[…] any event, the United States is in no danger of being overtaken by China in our lifetimes (or probably […]
[…] conclude by doing one of my favorite things – quoting myself. Here’s a bit of what I wrote last year. China has been growing in recent decades, but it’s almost impossible not to grow when you start […]
[…] criticize the U.S. tax system and notwithstanding the passage you just read, I wouldn’t want anyone to conclude that China has better economic policy. The United States may have become more statist in the past decade, dropping from 3rd to 10th in […]
The issue is whether Americans want to retain their exceptionalism.
So the issue is that Americans have become accustomed to a unique, exceptional and enviable standard of living. So they become annoyed when their competitors gain ground, even if those competitors are still quite some way behind.
But an enviable and exceptional standard of living is, almost by definition, linked to enviable and exceptional per capita production. And that enviable and exceptional per capita production is not something that is greatly encouraged by the incentives and counterincentives of the Welfare State. So as other countries institute even modest liberalizations of their economies (ironically after finally realizing how far behind the freer economies they had fallen) their productivity increases, their prosperity follows, and the American standard of living becomes less and less exceptional.
As I have said many times, citizens of the Western nations either remove the dis-incentives to production they have walled themselves into and start growing at something comparable to the worldwide average of 4%, or the rest of the world catches up to them and Western standard of living converges to a worldwide average.
Of course, if that happens through China catching up to the US, then, in absolute terms that is good for everybody. The pity is that Americans have finally discovered the Welfare State and are thus locking themselves into perpetually low average growth rates of 2%. And the worst part is that such changes are irreversible, as virtually every other nation in Europe has shown.