China's forecast-beating growth belies storm clouds ahead: Analysts
Forecast-beating growth in China's first quarter may have offered Beijing's economic planners some much needed good news -- but analysts warn they should strap in for tariff-induced woes further down the line.
The National Bureau of Statistics said Wednesday the world's number-two economy expanded 5.4 percent on-year in January-March, helped by a surge in exports.
However, observers said the bulk of that came from "frontloading" as business rushed to ship goods out of the factory before Donald Trump's trade blitz kicked in.
And while state efforts to boost lagging consumption -- for months a drag on growth -- played a role in the growth boost, the outlook remained uncertain.
"It's too early to interpret this strength as a sign of lasting market recovery," Yue Su at the Economist Intelligence Unit told AFP.
"The strong performance has been driven by trade frontloading ahead of anticipated tariffs and a policy-driven rebound in consumption -- particularly in electronics and home appliances," she added.
Tit-for-tat exchanges have seen US levies imposed on China rise to 145 percent, and Beijing setting a retaliatory 125 percent toll on imports from America.
Trump has said the ball is in China's court if it wants to find a way out and Beijing has, in turn, vowed to "fight to the end" in a trade war that shows few signs of letting up.
But Beijing's gung-ho rhetoric belies deep concerns about the impact that Trump's tariffs could have on the deeply export-dependent Chinese economy.
"The escalation happening in April is going to be felt in the second-quarter figures as the tariffs will send stateside firms looking to other suppliers, impeding Chinese exports and slamming the brakes on investment," Heron Lim, an economist at Moody's Analytics, told AFP.
"This will hit electronics makers and exporters the hardest, as their products dominate China's US-bound exports," he said.
And Louise Loo at Oxford Economics warned that "the improvement in growth momentum is very likely to be short-circuited in the coming months by the incoming headwinds of punitive tariffs".
More macro please
China on Wednesday admitted that the global economy was becoming more "complex and severe" -- and that tariffs were putting "pressure" on trade.
A top economic planner also stressed that more "proactive and effective macro policies" would be needed to boost growth.
Beijing last year announced a string of aggressive measures to reignite the economy, including interest rate cuts, cancelling restrictions on homebuying, hiking the debt ceiling for local governments and bolstering support for financial markets.
After a blistering market rally fuelled by hopes for a long-awaited "bazooka stimulus", optimism waned as authorities refrained from providing a specific figure for the bailout or fleshing out any of the pledges.
But as a potentially crippling trade war looms, analysts agree that Beijing may finally feel pressed to do more to boost domestic spending and tariff-proof the economy.
A debt crisis in the property sector -- long a major drag on broader consumer sentiment -- remains a crucial handicap for the economy.
"Throwing the domestic economy a lifeline is more important than ever before," Sarah Tan of Moody's Analytics said.
"The cratering property market remains front and centre of households' concerns," she added.
"Combined with the shaky labour market, falling house prices are giving households good reason to prioritise saving over spending."
Insights into how that stimulus could work could emerge from an expected meeting of China's Politburo, its ruling party Communist Party's top decision-making body.
"We continue to anticipate a $2 trillion stimulus package focused on consumption, infrastructure, urban renewal, and shantytown renovation," said Su at the Economist Intelligence Unit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
The Republican Party's fiscal hawk era is officially over
There is no constituency for debt reduction, which is a fancy way of saying voters don't care that the federal balance sheet is roughly $37 trillion in the red — and growing. This simple fact of American politics goes a long way toward explaining why President Donald Trump, with the help of congressional Republicans, is pushing a sweeping reconciliation package of tax cuts and fresh domestic spending priorities that is projected to add approximately $3.8 trillion to the swelling federal debt. Politics is a service business and Trump and his Capitol Hill allies are aiming to please the customer. So they've loaded up the reconciliation package, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, with a series of crowd-pleasers — expansions of existing tax breaks plus some brand-new ones. Yes, there are spending cuts. The version of the legislation that passed in the House of Representatives and is now up for consideration in the Senate includes reductions to Medicaid and other budget line items. But there's nothing in the bill that results in a net decrease in the debt. Even the proposed changes to Medicaid face an uncertain future, thanks to GOP opposition in the Senate. That's because the sort of substantial spending cuts and programme reforms required to break Washington's addiction to borrowing would be wildly unpopular. For instance, any meaningful attempt to balance the books probably requires both raising taxes and overhauling Medicare and Social Security. That's not a recipe for winning elections. As concerning as the US debt load is becoming for bond markets and some finance titans (and the few fiscal hawks left in Washington), most Americans have more urgent concerns, said David Winston, a Republican pollster who has been surveying voters for more than 25 years. 'There's another issue hitting voters that's a bigger deal, and that's inflation,' he told me. 'When you're looking at an economic situation where there's something that's pressing people at a personal level, it's not that the deficit isn't important, it is. But being able to pay bills and deal with things on a weekly basis and keep up with all your costs takes precedence.' Winston is right — and that's not to mention the fact that so many voters are convinced the looming debt bomb can be diffused by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in government spending. But this isn't a new phenomenon. Voters generally, particularly on the left, have always found some reason or another for opposing legislation that asks them to participate in the solution to Washington's fiscal challenges. It's why tax hikes on the so-called rich are so popular and such an easy political message to wield. What has changed is the Republican Party and the voters it represents. Without question, Republican presidents prior to Trump were complicit in running up the debt. But in the pre-Trump era defined by President Ronald Reagan, fiscal responsibility and small government had currency with grassroots conservatives who formed the heart of the GOP base. But today's Republican base voters are different than their forebearers, courtesy of a Trump populist makeover. The 45th and 47th president over the past decade attracted legions of working-class voters to the Republican Party. For the most part, these newer Republicans are former Democrats who joined the GOP for cultural reasons; for instance, they passionately oppose abortion rights and support gun rights. Notably, they brought with them their preference for government safety-net programs and general lack of concern about the debt (qualities that have long defined grassroots Democrats). Simultaneously, suburban voters inclined to value fiscal responsibility generally, and debt reduction specifically, have drifted away from the GOP. The result is a Republican governing coalition much more enamored of government spending than it used to be and far less concerned about the federal debt, even though it has grown to more than 120% of the entire US economy — problematic to say the least. Brad Todd, a veteran Republican strategist in Washington and coauthor of The Great Revolt; Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics, has closely monitored this electoral transformation. 'The voters who are additive to the coalition as a result of Donald Trump are voters who are not only comfortable with entitlements. They're wary of anybody that might cut them. One of the reasons these voters were not Republican for a long time is because they believed the Democrats' scare tactics on entitlements,' Todd told me. 'The realignment works both ways. Some of the voters Republicans have lost are upscale suburbanites who are fiscal conservatives.' 'Republicans tried to do privatised Social Security accounts; A to Z budgeting; baseline budgeting; line-item veto; balanced budget amendment,' he added. 'We've tried all those innovations, none of them resulted in winning elections. Culture does result in winning elections and so Donald Trump just came along and made the party about culture and not conservative economics.' David M. Drucker, Tribune News Service
Khaleej Times
3 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Iran says no sanctions relief in US nuclear proposal
Iran's parliament speaker said on Sunday that the latest US proposal for a nuclear deal does not include the lifting of sanctions, state media reported as negotiations appear to have hit a roadblock. The two foes have held five rounds of Omani-mediated talks since April, seeking to replace a landmark agreement between Tehran and world powers that set restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief, before US President Donald Trump abandoned the accord during his first term in 2018. In a video aired on Iranian state TV, parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said that "the US plan does not even mention the lifting of sanctions". He called it a sign of dishonesty, accusing the Americans of seeking to impose a "unilateral" agreement that Tehran would not accept. "The delusional US president should know better and change his approach if he is really looking for a deal," Ghalibaf said. On May 31, after the fifth round of talks, Iran said it had received "elements" of a US proposal, with officials later taking issue with "ambiguities" in the draft text. The US and its Western allies have long accused the Islamic republic of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, a charge Iran has consistently denied, insisting that its atomic programme was solely for peaceful purposes. Key issues in the negotiations have been the removal of biting economic sanctions and uranium enrichment. Tehran says it has the right to enrich uranium under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the Trump administration has called any Iranian enrichment a "red line". Trump, who has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign of sanction on Iran since taking office in January, has repeatedly said it will not be allowed any uranium enrichment under a potential deal. On Tuesday, Iran's top negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, said the country "will not ask anyone for permission to continue enriching uranium". According to the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that enriches uranium up to 60 percent -- still short of the 90 percent threshold needed for a nuclear warhead. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday rejected the latest US proposal and said enrichment was "key" to Iran's nuclear programme. The IAEA Board of Governors is scheduled to meet in Vienna later this month and discuss Iran's nuclear activities.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Climate change sceptics and clean fuel shortage risk airline industry's decarbonisation target
The airline industry's central sustainability goal of net zero emissions by 2050 is at risk from the policies of climate change sceptics, such as US President Donald Trump. The rise of world leaders who support fossil fuels over renewable energy development and the scaling back of environmental regulations are 'obviously a setback', Marie Owens Thomsen, Iata's senior vice president of sustainability and chief economist, said. 'It does imperil success on the 2050 horizon,' she said. 'But I don't think it's going to reverse or halt progress, it will just slow progress. Now that's bad enough ... the 2050 deadline is coming furiously fast.' During its annual meeting in New Delhi last week the International Air Transport Association (Iata) nevertheless remained committed to the 2050 target date, despite airing escalating concerns about the cost, availability and insufficient government incentives for the production of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). This is not where we should be in 2025 ... there is no time for delay and no tolerance for government greenwashing and unnecessary cost increases Willie Walsh, director general, Iata Iata member airlines agreed in 2021 to target net zero emissions in 2050 based mainly on a gradual switch to SAF, which is made from waste oil and biomass. The aviation industry accounts for 2.5 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, according to the International Energy Agency. But it has come under increasing pressure from environmentalists to curb its carbon footprint amid booming air travel demand. While the amount of SAF produced will double to two million tonnes in 2025, that represents only 0.7 per cent of airlines' jet fuel demand, according to Iata's latest data. The average cost of SAF in 2024 was 3.1 times that of jet fuel, for a total additional cost of $1.6 billion, according to Iata estimates. In 2025, the global average cost for SAF is expected to be 4.2 times that of jet fuel. 'Another problem, which is related, is that oil is so cheap,' Ms Thomsen said. 'I think that also diminishes the sense of urgency that people have.' Oil prices will need to trade above $80 a barrel, or even above $100 a barrel, before there is pressure to create new energy markets, she said. Brent, the benchmark for two thirds of the world's crude, was trading around $66 a barrel on Sunday. Lower oil prices come amid Mr Trump's tariffs scheme, his calls to " drill baby drill" and a decision by Opec to hike crude output quotas. Iata estimates the cost of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 to be an enormous $4.7 trillion, or $174 billion a year. However, ramping up the production of SAF is 'entirely achievable' as there is sufficient feedstock and the technology is available to get started, Ms Thomsen said. The required SAF investments are comparable to the money governments had poured into developing previous new energy markets such as wind and solar, she said, adding that the funding can also be found by scrapping subsidies to the world's major oil producing companies. 'The world is subsidising large oil companies to the height of $1 trillion per year. With that money, if it were redirected in its totality, we could solve our energy transition in less than five years,' she said. 'The thing that is really missing is the courage and willingness to take on vested interests.' Sounding the alarm SAF production needs an 'exponential expansion' to meet the demands of the airline industry's commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, said Iata, which represents some 350 airlines, comprising more than 80 per cent of global air traffic. Airlines cannot achieve the target by themselves and require more urgent action from governments, manufacturers, airport operators and fuel suppliers, Willie Walsh, Iata's director general, said. 'These actions must be accompanied by ringing the alarm bells on SAF production,' he said at the Iata meeting in India. Iata's decarbonisation roadmap estimates that SAF will provide 65 per cent of the carbon mitigation needed in 2050. 'This is not where we should be in 2025. We have a quarter-century to get to net zero. There is no time for delay and no tolerance for government greenwashing and unnecessary cost increases,' Mr Walsh said. Top priorities In April Mr Walsh had warned that industry efforts to achieve net zero by 2050 were 'off track', but he said last week that any alteration of the target was no discussed at the airlines' meeting in New Delhi. 'The industry is still obviously targeting net zero in 2050 ... we are concerned about the pace of progress,' he said. The value chain that needs to support airlines' transition to net zero is not making sufficient progress, and 'that's the reason we're calling it out', he added. Poorly co-ordinated government actions are leading to SAF mandates in different countries that have done little to stimulate production but have instead led to additional costs to the airlines without environmental benefits, he said. The Iata boss said there was a narrow window for the industry to meet its goals. 'It is a wake up-call. We still have time to get there, but we do need to see more action on the part of all the partners in the value chain to make sure the industry can get there,' he said. As of 2025, some 81 airlines had signed 170 SAF offtake agreements, signalling to producers that there is strong demand for the green fuel, according to Iata. Many airlines are unable to procure SAF without having to ship it over long distances, which defeats the purpose of reducing emissions, Mr Walsh said. 'Waning enthusiasm' Four years after global carriers committed to net zero by 2050, the Iata meeting marked escalating worry among airline chiefs about tackling climate concerns. 'There's a level of scepticism and perhaps even you could say waning enthusiasm for the overall energy transition,' Patrick Healy, group chair at Cathay Pacific, said during a panel on financing net zero target. 'Everyone's realising it's a lot more complicated than we thought a few years ago ... but it's not a problem we can turn our backs on.' Iata forecasts higher profits for airlines in 2025, with a drop in revenue offset by falling prices for traditional jet fuel. Rob McLeod, head of energy risk solutions at Hartree Partners, called on airlines to use the savings from fuel costs to invest more in SAF to help fund the energy transition. 'Lower fossil fuel prices effectively make renewables seem more expensive, but to flip it on its head: all the airlines in the room are saving so much money on their fossil jet [fuel], you've maybe got a bit more in your budget to invest more in SAF,' he told a panel about the energy transition. Iata also criticised plane manufacturers that have failed to deliver new fuel-efficient jets on time, forcing airlines to keep older planes flying for longer. 'Aircraft and engine manufacturers must make good on their promises to bring greater efficiency and carbon-reducing technologies to market fast,' Mr Walsh said. 'By the time we meet next year, we must be able to show more progress.'
