Wall Street Snubs China for India in a Historic Markets Shift. Thus blared the Bloomberg headline a week ago. A momentous shift is under way in global markets as investors pull billions of dollars from China’s sputtering economy, two decades after betting on the country as the world’s biggest growth story. Much of that cash is now heading for India, with Wall Street giants like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley endorsing the South Asian nation as the prime investment destination for the next decade. That momentum is triggering a gold rush. Investors are paying close attention to the contrasting trajectories of two of Asia’s greatest powers. India, the world’s fastest-growing major economy, has vastly expanded infrastructure under Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his bid to lure global capital and supply lines away from Beijing. China, on the other hand, is grappling with chronic economic woes and a widening rift with the Western-led order.
This is such a well written column. The material coming out of Bloomberg and the FT is often very poorly sourced and based on "market sentiment" as opposed to any substantive analysis. They have turned their kind of economics commentary into the kind of clickbait which is so pervasive in the political scene.
What they also miss about China is that the dynamics and structure of the market are entirely different to what the West have created. The Western nations who really went all in on the market economy are subject to moments of panic every time a single economic indicator trends downwards because they no longer control their ownership economies. The Chinese control their economy, they have capital controls and tight supervision / control of their industries in a way which would be an anathema to the market purists.
The Chinese actually designed their economy so as not to have to worry about these things. This was their intention.
Thank you Professor Tooze, for such a useful article. Not only does it inform in a way that the Bloomberg piece does not, but it also lays bare the hype (and propaganda?) surrounding these issues at the moment. I am looking for a newspaper to replace the FT, which in my view has deteriorated dramatically, over the last 4 or 5 years, as a source of serious and non-partisan news. I was closely considering switching to Bloomberg - thank you again for turning off that switch before I plugged £200 pa. Dr Mark Venables
brilliant article !! It is clearly helps explain the discrepancies i was observing in the international news regards to India and China and facts of huge Chinese current account surplus.
There is something manic, if not outright desperate, in the drumbeat of "China Fail!" narratives metronomically hitting the Western corporate media organs -- any adherence to veracity seems to be less the point than their volume and repetition.
Thank you for providing a valuable "big picture" perspective. The real focus for assessing the health of the Chinese economy should not be made by making sideline comparisons of investor flows between Cina and India, but on China's ability to sustain its trade surplus in the face of deglobalization.
Your article could have been been better illustrated if your charts showed a direct comparison of the relevant China vs. India econ. stats. That way, the insignificance of the Bloomberg article would be immediately apparent.
This is such a well written column. The material coming out of Bloomberg and the FT is often very poorly sourced and based on "market sentiment" as opposed to any substantive analysis. They have turned their kind of economics commentary into the kind of clickbait which is so pervasive in the political scene.
What they also miss about China is that the dynamics and structure of the market are entirely different to what the West have created. The Western nations who really went all in on the market economy are subject to moments of panic every time a single economic indicator trends downwards because they no longer control their ownership economies. The Chinese control their economy, they have capital controls and tight supervision / control of their industries in a way which would be an anathema to the market purists.
The Chinese actually designed their economy so as not to have to worry about these things. This was their intention.
Thank you Professor Tooze, for such a useful article. Not only does it inform in a way that the Bloomberg piece does not, but it also lays bare the hype (and propaganda?) surrounding these issues at the moment. I am looking for a newspaper to replace the FT, which in my view has deteriorated dramatically, over the last 4 or 5 years, as a source of serious and non-partisan news. I was closely considering switching to Bloomberg - thank you again for turning off that switch before I plugged £200 pa. Dr Mark Venables
brilliant article !! It is clearly helps explain the discrepancies i was observing in the international news regards to India and China and facts of huge Chinese current account surplus.
There is something manic, if not outright desperate, in the drumbeat of "China Fail!" narratives metronomically hitting the Western corporate media organs -- any adherence to veracity seems to be less the point than their volume and repetition.
Cui bono?
This piece is objective, sobering, while also giving us the full picture. Thank you for this wonderful piece of work!
Thank you for providing a valuable "big picture" perspective. The real focus for assessing the health of the Chinese economy should not be made by making sideline comparisons of investor flows between Cina and India, but on China's ability to sustain its trade surplus in the face of deglobalization.
Your article could have been been better illustrated if your charts showed a direct comparison of the relevant China vs. India econ. stats. That way, the insignificance of the Bloomberg article would be immediately apparent.
Good perspective avoiding the clickbait