[爆卦] 美媒:印度將取代中國成為金磚龍頭!消失
2017.9.20
富士比:印度將取代中國成為金磚龍頭!
文中指稱:
中國正面臨巨額債務, 市場緊縮, 房市泡沫, 工資高漲等一系列問題,
以及越來越極權腐敗的政治環境, 政府濫用公權力干預市場.
相比印度有更低廉的人力, 多元化的民主社會, 擁有很大的投資潛力,
未來將取代中國成為金磚龍頭.
The recent BRICS meeting in Xiamen formed the setting for what appeared to be
a rapprochement between its two key members, India and China. It was preceded
by a rather sudden diplomatic resolution to the recent Doklam (Donglang)
crisis which saw Indian and Chinese troops step back from possible
confrontation. This was widely viewed to have been agreed at the initiative
of the Chinese, eager to secure the attendance of Narendra Modi at the
immediately following BRICS meeting.
Although the BRICS concept is long past its pomp, it is clear that China
still values it as a diplomatic forum, either for what is discussed and
agreed while it takes place, or for the appearance that emerges of the
Chinese engaged in a multilateral forum in which they take centre stage.
Indeed, China has long been the real engine behind the BRICS, given that both
Brazil and Russia (B and R respectively) were dependent on the China driven
commodity boom and South Africa (the S) is there to make up numbers. The real
quandary, however, was always India.
Without India, the "BRCS" would be harder to pronounce but perhaps a little
easier to understand. Conceived by Goldman Sachs as a Powerpoint acronym to
describe high growth emerging markets, there was always something slightly ad
hoc about the arrangement, a useful thumb sketch perhaps, shorthand for
time-poor, knowledge-light bankers and investment managers to add a patina of
granularity to their boom dependent punts. In reality an almost endless, debt
fuelled Chinese investment cascade fuelled what many mistook for a commodity
super-cycle that flattered Russia and Brazil, and made India seem like the
tortoise to China's hare.
All about the growth
The key problem with the BRICS was always that there is little that unites
them all aside from a once shared propensity for high rates of growth. This
is fine if all you seek are outlets for investment capital, but rather begs
an assessment of–in each case–what that growth implies. A recent explainer
by Michael Pettis makes the obvious, but seemingly not widely understood,
point that 'GDP does not distinguish between activity that increases a
country's wealth and activity that doesn't'. And in making this point he
obliges readers to move beyond simplistic "GDPism" towards making judgements
about the quality of investments in each case. Rising GDP, in other words,
needn't always been good news. It might in fact be disguising some very bad
news indeed.
Here also is where China and India diverge. For all the fanfare laid on for
the BRICS in Xiamen, the association has always been fundamentally driven by
the development trajectories of those two Asian supergiants; China and India.
Brazil and Russia, being primarily commodity suppliers, ride the
international consequences of growth in those other two giants, but aside
from that have little to contribute. In recent years China has driven the
global economy with its rapid investment and export focussed growth while
India has grown more slowly and organically.
The upshot is that China has huge amounts of infrastructure and an economy
that must now service enormous amounts of debt. The staggering GDP growth
figures they have achieved over many years have yet to register the
consequences of all that investment and if much of it generates little or no
return, the consequent write-downs will weigh down on China's GDP figures for
years to come. Some estimate coming write-downs in excess of 35% of GDP,
which according to Pettis' formula would mean China's economy is actually
much smaller than its reported GDP.
India, on the other hand, registered a growth rate higher than China last
year, and while India's economy is much smaller than China's right now, in
contrast to China it has a great deal of catch up growth ahead of it, and–
again unlike China–has a government with an appetite for structural reform
as a key driver for future growth, rather than debt-fuelled investment and
exports.
What would Goldman Sachs say now?
Setting aside China's effort to build the BRICS into a cooperative forum, the
same formula that generated the BRICS concept would produce a wildly
different set of results today. China, with its enormous debts, closed
capital markets, asset bubbles and increasing communist party interference in
the economy would look like an entirely different kind of investment prospect
than India, with its greater growth potential, favorable demographics, open
and pluralist society and reform minded government. Indeed, apart from both
being large economies it's hard to imagine anyone putting the two economies
in the same category anymore.
All of which provides a useful contrast between the original concept of the
BRICS as a meaningful investment destination premised largely on impressive
growth rates, and its more recent emergence as a forum for the projection of
influence. Because if the BRICS were originally premised on GDP growth, then
as long China's GDP growth becomes increasingly dependent on self-defeating
credit expansion, India looks the better bet. Furthermore, given the emphasis
China placed on securing the attendance of Narendra Modi at Xiamen, it
appears China might already understand this quite well.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbulloch/2017/09/20/india-not-china-is-now-central-to-the-future-of-the-brics/#7806af525d1e
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 61.63.97.67
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Gossiping/M.1506001958.A.2E2.html
噓
09/21 21:53, , 1F
09/21 21:53, 1F
噓
09/21 21:53, , 2F
09/21 21:53, 2F
推
09/21 21:53, , 3F
09/21 21:53, 3F
推
09/21 21:53, , 4F
09/21 21:53, 4F
推
09/21 21:54, , 5F
09/21 21:54, 5F
→
09/21 21:54, , 6F
09/21 21:54, 6F
→
09/21 21:54, , 7F
09/21 21:54, 7F
→
09/21 21:55, , 8F
09/21 21:55, 8F
→
09/21 21:56, , 9F
09/21 21:56, 9F
推
09/21 21:56, , 10F
09/21 21:56, 10F
噓
09/21 21:56, , 11F
09/21 21:56, 11F
噓
09/21 21:56, , 12F
09/21 21:56, 12F
噓
09/21 21:56, , 13F
09/21 21:56, 13F
推
09/21 21:57, , 14F
09/21 21:57, 14F
推
09/21 21:58, , 15F
09/21 21:58, 15F
→
09/21 21:58, , 16F
09/21 21:58, 16F
推
09/21 21:59, , 17F
09/21 21:59, 17F
推
09/21 22:00, , 18F
09/21 22:00, 18F
噓
09/21 22:02, , 19F
09/21 22:02, 19F
推
09/21 22:02, , 20F
09/21 22:02, 20F
→
09/21 22:03, , 21F
09/21 22:03, 21F
噓
09/21 22:04, , 22F
09/21 22:04, 22F
→
09/21 22:04, , 23F
09/21 22:04, 23F
噓
09/21 22:05, , 24F
09/21 22:05, 24F
推
09/21 22:06, , 25F
09/21 22:06, 25F
→
09/21 22:06, , 26F
09/21 22:06, 26F
噓
09/21 22:06, , 27F
09/21 22:06, 27F
→
09/21 22:07, , 28F
09/21 22:07, 28F
→
09/21 22:07, , 29F
09/21 22:07, 29F
推
09/21 22:08, , 30F
09/21 22:08, 30F
→
09/21 22:08, , 31F
09/21 22:08, 31F
噓
09/21 22:09, , 32F
09/21 22:09, 32F
→
09/21 22:09, , 33F
09/21 22:09, 33F
推
09/21 22:10, , 34F
09/21 22:10, 34F
→
09/21 22:11, , 35F
09/21 22:11, 35F
噓
09/21 22:14, , 36F
09/21 22:14, 36F
推
09/21 22:16, , 37F
09/21 22:16, 37F
推
09/21 22:20, , 38F
09/21 22:20, 38F
→
09/21 22:20, , 39F
09/21 22:20, 39F
→
09/21 22:21, , 40F
09/21 22:21, 40F
噓
09/21 22:22, , 41F
09/21 22:22, 41F
推
09/21 22:25, , 42F
09/21 22:25, 42F
→
09/21 22:41, , 43F
09/21 22:41, 43F
推
09/21 22:41, , 44F
09/21 22:41, 44F
推
09/21 22:47, , 45F
09/21 22:47, 45F
推
09/21 22:47, , 46F
09/21 22:47, 46F
→
09/21 22:48, , 47F
09/21 22:48, 47F
→
09/21 22:49, , 48F
09/21 22:49, 48F
推
09/21 22:54, , 49F
09/21 22:54, 49F
→
09/21 22:55, , 50F
09/21 22:55, 50F
→
09/21 22:57, , 51F
09/21 22:57, 51F
推
09/21 23:02, , 52F
09/21 23:02, 52F
推
09/21 23:05, , 53F
09/21 23:05, 53F
→
09/21 23:06, , 54F
09/21 23:06, 54F
→
09/21 23:21, , 55F
09/21 23:21, 55F
→
09/21 23:21, , 56F
09/21 23:21, 56F
噓
09/21 23:25, , 57F
09/21 23:25, 57F
噓
09/21 23:29, , 58F
09/21 23:29, 58F
推
09/22 01:42, , 59F
09/22 01:42, 59F
→
09/22 03:04, , 60F
09/22 03:04, 60F
→
09/22 03:05, , 61F
09/22 03:05, 61F
→
09/22 03:05, , 62F
09/22 03:05, 62F
→
09/22 03:05, , 63F
09/22 03:05, 63F
推
09/22 03:58, , 64F
09/22 03:58, 64F
→
09/22 03:58, , 65F
09/22 03:58, 65F
推
09/22 05:03, , 66F
09/22 05:03, 66F
→
09/22 05:03, , 67F
09/22 05:03, 67F
推
09/22 05:16, , 68F
09/22 05:16, 68F
→
09/22 05:16, , 69F
09/22 05:16, 69F
→
09/22 05:16, , 70F
09/22 05:16, 70F
噓
09/22 05:25, , 71F
09/22 05:25, 71F
→
09/22 07:02, , 72F
09/22 07:02, 72F
噓
09/22 07:08, , 73F
09/22 07:08, 73F
推
09/22 07:10, , 74F
09/22 07:10, 74F
→
09/22 07:24, , 75F
09/22 07:24, 75F
→
09/22 07:25, , 76F
09/22 07:25, 76F
噓
09/22 09:15, , 77F
09/22 09:15, 77F
→
09/22 09:15, , 78F
09/22 09:15, 78F
→
09/22 09:15, , 79F
09/22 09:15, 79F
→
09/22 09:15, , 80F
09/22 09:15, 80F
→
09/22 09:23, , 81F
09/22 09:23, 81F
噓
09/22 09:27, , 82F
09/22 09:27, 82F
噓
09/22 10:23, , 83F
09/22 10:23, 83F
推
09/22 10:30, , 84F
09/22 10:30, 84F
噓
09/22 10:35, , 85F
09/22 10:35, 85F
→
09/22 14:01, , 86F
09/22 14:01, 86F
推
09/22 18:47, , 87F
09/22 18:47, 87F
→
09/22 18:47, , 88F
09/22 18:47, 88F
噓
09/22 19:32, , 89F
09/22 19:32, 89F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文 (最舊先)：
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 9 篇)：