By 
PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 18, 2013
What did Krugman say , had alread published 20 years ago , just before east Asia financial crisis in 1997, in his famous essay "The Myth of Asia Miracle"(1994), which originally pointed to China.
All economic data are best viewed as a peculiarly boring genre of science fiction, but Chinese data are even more fictional than most. Add a secretive government, a controlled press, and the sheer size of the country, and it’s harder to figure out what’s really happening in China than it is in any other major economy.
Yet the signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We’re not 
talking about some minor setback along the way, but something more 
fundamental. The country’s whole way of doing business, the economic 
system that has driven three decades of incredible growth, has reached 
its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its 
Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be.
        
Start with the data, unreliable as they may be. What immediately jumps 
out at you when you compare China with almost any other economy, aside 
from its rapid growth, is the lopsided balance between consumption and 
investment. All successful economies devote part of their current income
 to investment rather than consumption, so as to expand their future 
ability to consume. China, however, seems to invest only to expand its 
future ability to invest even more. America, admittedly on the high 
side, devotes 70 percent of its gross domestic product to consumption; for China, the number is only half that high, while almost half of G.D.P. is invested.        
How is that even possible? What keeps consumption so low, and how have 
the Chinese been able to invest so much without (until now) running into
 sharply diminishing returns? The answers are the subject of intense 
controversy. The story that makes the most sense to me, however, rests 
on an old insight by the economist W. Arthur Lewis,
 who argued that countries in the early stages of economic development 
typically have a small modern sector alongside a large traditional 
sector containing huge amounts of “surplus labor” — underemployed 
peasants making at best a marginal contribution to overall economic 
output.        
The existence of this surplus labor, in turn, has two effects. First, 
for a while such countries can invest heavily in new factories, 
construction, and so on without running into diminishing returns, 
because they can keep drawing in new labor from the countryside. Second,
 competition from this reserve army of surplus labor keeps wages low 
even as the economy grows richer. Indeed, the main thing holding down 
Chinese consumption seems to be that Chinese families never see much of 
the income being generated by the country’s economic growth. Some of 
that income flows to a politically connected elite; but much of it 
simply stays bottled up in businesses, many of them state-owned 
enterprises.        
It’s all very peculiar by our standards, but it worked for several 
decades. Now, however, China has hit the “Lewis point” — to put it 
crudely, it’s running out of surplus peasants.        
That should be a good thing. Wages are rising; finally, ordinary Chinese
 are starting to share in the fruits of growth. But it also means that 
the Chinese economy is suddenly faced with the need for drastic 
“rebalancing” — the jargon phrase of the moment. Investment is now 
running into sharply diminishing returns and is going to drop 
drastically no matter what the government does; consumer spending must 
rise dramatically to take its place. The question is whether this can 
happen fast enough to avoid a nasty slump.        
And the answer, increasingly, seems to be no. The need for rebalancing 
has been obvious for years, but China just kept putting off the 
necessary changes, instead boosting the economy by keeping the currency 
undervalued and flooding it with cheap credit. (Since someone is going 
to raise this issue: no, this bears very little resemblance to the 
Federal Reserve’s policies here.) These measures postponed the day of 
reckoning, but also ensured that this day would be even harder when it 
finally came. And now it has arrived.        
How big a deal is this for the rest of us? At market values — which is 
what matters for the global outlook — China’s economy is still only 
modestly bigger than Japan’s; it’s around half the size of either the 
U.S. or the European Union. So it’s big but not huge, and, in ordinary 
times, the world could probably take China’s troubles in stride.        
Unfortunately, these aren’t ordinary times: China is hitting its Lewis 
point at the same time that Western economies are going through their 
“Minsky moment,” the point when overextended private borrowers all try 
to pull back at the same time, and in so doing provoke a general slump. 
China’s new woes are the last thing the rest of us needed.        
No doubt many readers are feeling some intellectual whiplash. Just the 
other day we were afraid of the Chinese. Now we’re afraid for them. But 
our situation has not improved.