What I read this week- Economic Times

Black Money-The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same

In the budget speech made on February 1, 2017, the finance minister Arun Jaitley had said: “The Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the Government for black money has suggested that no transaction above Rs. 3 lakh should be permitted in cash. The Government has decided to accept this proposal.” Black money is basically money earned through legal or illegal means but on which tax has not been paid. In the Finance Bill (which is what the budget is) that was finally passed on March 30, 2017, this limit was reduced to Rs. 2 lakh. So far so good. As Vivek Kaul writes the intentions are very noble indeed. Nevertheless, the first question is how will the government and more specifically the Income Tax department figure out that cash transactions of greater than Rs. 2 lakh are taking place? Typically, such large cash transactions are carried out only if the two parties do not want the government to know about it, and in the process avoid paying tax on the transaction. Let’s say you go to buy a luxury good which costs more than Rs. 2 lakh. The shopkeeper may not want to take cash for an amount greater than Rs. 2 lakh. But one always has the option to go over to another shopkeeper who is willing to accept cash and fudge his books of account. He writes  that this new law will not have a major impact on black money in India, its noble intentions notwithstanding. He concludes by saying that Black money can only be eradicated from system if the system of electoral financing in India is cleaned up. Given the high cost of elections in India, politicians need cash. And the builders and the corporates provide this cash. And there is nothing that the government has done on this front till date.

Read More

https://www.equitymaster.com/diary/detail.asp?date=04/06/2017&story=3&title=Black-Money-The-More-Things-Change-the-More-They-Remain-the-Same&utm_source=archive-page&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=vivek-kauls-diary&utm_content=story

Forget coding, we need to teach our kids how to dream

A 5-year-old today will enter a working world in 2030 that is so incomprehensible that we need an existential re-imagination of the very foundation of education. It’s the cliched hope of the paranoid parent that teaching Chinese will best prepare kids for a future of different power structures in geopolitics, but is that essential in a world of Google translate? Many think that teaching kids to code is the solution, but won’t soon software be written by software? Life is becoming increasingly less predictable. From the political volatility of Donald Trump and Brexit to the vast societal changes of globalisation, drastic, seismic change is in the air. If we accept that the role of education is to furnish our children with the best understanding, skills and values for a prosperous and happy life, then how do we arm them for a future that we can’t imagine? Do we even need knowledge in a world of Alexa and Siri? Is the skill of agility now more valuable than the gaining of knowledge? We’ve prioritised the acquisition of knowledge around what we assume society would deem most “worthy”. This value has, however, eroded over the years. Businesses have complained about the poor skills of school-leavers, and we’ve assumed the way forward is to ensure that more people study for longer. I think that the changing world means that we need to prepare kids in a totally different way. Current schooling seems outward-in. We prioritise knowledge above all else. It is tested in exams. The best in school are those who can most easily recall information. Which was pretty helpful until like now, where information is immediate, everywhere and abundant. For kids growing up today, let alone tomorrow, we’re living in a world where we outsource knowledge and skills to the Internet. Kids will struggle to communicate if they can’t spell at all, but when spell-checkers auto translate and software handles voice-to-text, maybe it’s not something to take up much time. Maths and the logic from it is essential, but perhaps we need to think of it more philosophically.

Read More

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/forget-coding-we-need-to-teach-our-kids-how-to-dream/

Hackers hijacked banks entire online operation

This story is out of thriller except that it is true and that’s why going digital without adequate backend security can be risky. One enterprising group of hackers targeting a Brazilian bank on one weekend afternoon, rerouted all of the bank’s online customers to perfectly reconstructed fakes of the bank’s properties, where the marks obediently handed over their account information. The internet security firm investigating this fraud described an unprecedented case of wholesale bank fraud, one that essentially hijacked a bank’s entire internet footprint. At 1 pm on October 22 of last year, the researchers say, hackers changed the Domain Name System registrations of all 36 of the bank’s online properties, commandeering the bank’s desktop and mobile website domains to take users to phishing sites. In practice, that meant the hackers could steal login credentials at sites hosted at the bank’s legitimate web addresses. Researchers believe the hackers may have even simultaneously redirected all transactions at ATMs or point-of-sale systems to their own servers, collecting the credit card details of anyone who used their card that Saturday afternoon. “Absolutely all of the bank’s online operations were under the attackers’ control for five to six hours,” With that domain hijacking in place, anyone visiting the bank’s website URLs were redirected to lookalike sites. And those sites even had valid HTTPS certificates issued in the name of the bank, so that visitors’ browsers would show a green lock and the bank’s name, just as they would with the real sites. From the hackers’ point of view, the DNS attack meant that “you become the bank. Everything belongs to you now.”

Read More

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/hackers-hijacked-banks-entire-online-operation/?mbid=nl_4417_p3&CNDID=31755630

World without retirement

We are entering the age of no retirement. The journey into that chilling reality is not a long one: the first generation who will experience it are now in their 40s and 50s. They grew up assuming they could expect the kind of retirement their parents enjoyed – stopping work in their mid-60s on a generous income, with time and good health enough to fulfil long-held dreams. For them, it may already be too late to make the changes necessary to retire at all. This is what a world without retirement looks like. Workers will be unable to down tools, even when they can barely hold them with hands gnarled by age-related arthritis. The raising of the state retirement age will create a new social inequality. Those living in areas in which the average life expectancy is lower than the state retirement age (south-east England has the highest average life expectancy, Scotland the lowest) will subsidise those better off by dying before they can claim the pension they have contributed to throughout their lives. In other words, wealthier people become beneficiaries of what remains of the welfare state. Many now in their 20s will be unable to save throughout their youth and middle age because of increasingly casualised employment, student debt and rising property prices. By the time they are old, members of this new generation of poor pensioners are liable to be, on average, far worse off than the average poor pensioner today.

Read More

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/mar/29/a-world-without-retirement?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Long+reads+base&utm_term=219907&subid=19762442&CMP=ema-1133

The Netflix and Amazon Prime generation

Since launching,cable television quickly emerged as the media consumption method of choice for families around the world.Cable brought to us some of the most memorable and noteworthy events in history. People saw the fall of the Berlin Wall from their living rooms in 1989 – and many even remember being inspired by Neil Armstrong taking his first steps on the moon twenty years earlier.

And although television is still a vital medium today, it is also stuck in an inevitable quagmire. Digital already generates more ad revenue than television, while more people switch to streaming platforms every day.

Make no mistake – even though there is still plenty of money to be made in television, cable is experiencing a slow death, just like other traditional media channels. It might not yet be reduced to the more niche territory of radio or print, but cable is treading the same path.

THE DIGITAL NATIVES

Why this is the case is very simple math.

Even just six years ago in 2011, the average 18-24 year old millennial consumed about 25 hours of traditional television per week – today, they consume closer to 14 hours.

That said, it’s no surprise that the first generation of digital natives skews heavily towards digital content, but what will be even more interesting is the behavior of the next generation on deck: Gen Z (born in 2000 and onwards). This cohort was born into a world of screens and iPhones, and will not be aware of a prior era. To them, flipping through channels on cable television seems even more antiquated and arbitrary than it does to older generations.

Gen Z watches between two and four hours of YouTube and less than an hour of traditional television per day. They’re also twice more likely to use YouTube than Millennials, and a lot less likely to use Facebook.
– Shireen Jiwan, chief brand experience officer at Lucky Brand

Less than an hour per day is not very conducive to the cable business, especially when there are hundreds of channels in existence today. And while insights on Gen Z are still fluid and evolving, it’s highly doubtful that the generation will do a 360 on video anytime soon.

In the meantime, cable’s survival as a dominant medium rests squarely on the shoulders of older generations. While it works as a business for now, cable can’t fight the demographics forever.

The Buying Power of the U.S. Dollar Over the Last Century

The value of money is not static.it may ebb and flow against other currencies on the market.In the long term,a currency tends to loose value over time through inflation and as more money is created.

Inflation is a result of too much money chasing too few goods- and it is often influenced by government policies, obliging central bank and other factors. In the following short timeline of monetary history in the 20th century, this infographic looks at major events, the change in money supply and what a dollar could buy each decade.

A Short Timeline of U.S. Monetary History

1900s
U.S. Money Supply: $7 billion
What $1 Could Buy: A pair of patent leather shoes.

1910s
U.S. Money Supply: $13 billion
What $1 Could Buy: A woman’s house dress.

1920s
U.S. Money Supply: $35 billion
What $1 Could Buy: Five pounds of sugar.

1930s
U.S. Money Supply: $46 billion
What $1 Could Buy: 16 cans of Campbell’s Soup

1940s
U.S. Money Supply: $55 billion
What $1 Could Buy: 20 bottles of Coca-Cola

1950s
U.S. Money Supply: $151 billion
What $1 Could Buy: One Mr. Potato Head

1960s
U.S. Money Supply: $211 billion
What $1 Could Buy: Two movie tickets.

1970s
Over the decade, the dollar loses 1/3 of its value.

U.S. Money Supply: $401 billion
What $1 Could Buy: Three Morton TV dinners.

1980s
U.S. Money Supply: $1,560 billion
What $1 Could Buy: One bottle of Heinz Ketchup.

1990s
U.S. Money Supply: $3,277 billion
What $1 Could Buy: One gallon of milk.

2000s
U.S. Money Supply: $4,917 billion
What $1 Could Buy: One Wendy’s hamburger.

2010-
Purchases were halted in October 2014 after accumulating $4.5 trillion in assets.

U.S. Money Supply: $13,291 billion
What $1 Could Buy: One song from iTunes. (wow this is known as destruction in the value of money)

The Changing Value of a Dollar

At the turn of the 20th century, the money supply was just $7 billion. Today there are literally 1,900X more dollars in existence.

While economic growth has meant we all make many more dollars today, it is still phenomenal to think that during past moments in the 20th century, a dollar could buy a pair of leather shoes or a women’s house dress.

 

Russell Napier’s “The Darkness on The Edge of Town”

Russell is one of my favorite economists and this post is heavy on economic fundamentals. He talks about a new and emerging world . A world in which companies having dollar liabilities will find it difficult to pay back their Dollar loans as US look to reduce its current account deficit .This will lead to much higher Dollar v/s other currencies. This post ties up with what Peter Zeihan writes on world without US protection in “The accidental Superpower”. After all if the only bully in class leaves then everybody wants to be a bully

By Russell Napier

The USD will rise as US growth slows. That is clearly not a consensus view. The consensus believes that the strength of the USD rests largely, if not solely, on the prospect for increasing interest rate differentials between the US and other key jurisdictions. Most investors expect that this has to be higher growth in the US, leading to higher interest rates that must underpin a further rise in the USD. Almost always investors seeking to profit from exchange rate movements focus on growth/inflation/interest rate differentials in planning where to place their bets. Thus, in recent weeks the USD has fallen on the international exchanges as concerns have grown about the President’s ability to deliver on his growth agenda. It is almost always correct to focus on growth/inflation/interest rate differentials in assessing the outlook for exchange rates, though it is a pursuit fraught with difficulties. Sometimes, if rarely, it is the wrong business to be in and the consequences are disastrous. Those who spent 1970 speculating as to whether the newly appointed Fed Chairman, Arthur Burns, was brewing one or two rate rises are not remembered kindly by history. That myopia led them to miss an event that determined investment returns for at least the next decade – the collapse of the global monetary system/Bretton Woods Agreement. Investors focusing on growth/inflation/interest rate differentials today are missing the fact that, once again, the global monetary system is breaking down. The continuing breakdown of our current system, driven by the inability or unwillingness of developed world nations to run current account deficits, will continue to push the USD higher as growth in the US falters.

In previous quarterly reports The Solid Ground has focused on the key structural changes that have led to a US economy that grows without a worsening current account deficit. These key forces include a shift in the consumption of services from goods by the baby boom generation, a rising savings rate – albeit rising at a glacial pace – and the shale oil and gas boom. These three factors are pushing the US economy towards a current account surplus even as the economy grows. Should the economy slow, then the normal cyclical forces would rapidly quicken the pace of that current account contraction. Based on recent market reaction, some investors would sell the USD as US growth slows and the likelihood of interest rises decline. However, this Pavlovian reaction ignores the fact that such a growth slowdown would further reduce the US current account deficit with profound negative impacts for Emerging Markets (EMs) and the stability of the current global monetary system.

A profound US economic reality has changed without investors paying it much attention. From 1992 to 2006 there was one economic certainty – if the US economy grew, the country’s current account deficit, relative to GDP, would also increase. A growing economy combined with a current account deficit that grew even more quickly produced large and growing current account surpluses elsewhere. Where those surpluses occurred in countries managing their exchange rates relative to the USD, they forced domestic liquidity creation through the process of the accumulation of foreign exchange reserves. Of course the capital account, whether in surplus or deficit, also played a role in determining the scale of liquidity creation in those jurisdictions managing exchange rates. As we have now seen in many cycles, capital, particularly short-term capital, is pro-cyclical in nature and tended to flow towards those countries witnessing high growth, boosted by their success in trade. The alchemy forced money creation in EMs while their central banks financed the US current account deficit by buying ever more Treasury securities. This ability of the US to run ever larger current account deficits as it posted high levels of domestic growth was the cornerstone of a global monetary system that was stitched together post the Asian economic crisis. That cornerstone has now collapsed, as the US current account deficit has collapsed, and that is the key to calling a bull market in the USD. That is a bull market that intensifies as US growth slows, the current account contraction accelerates and the stress on the current global monetary system becomes ever more apparent.

Our current monetary system, based upon EMs managing their exchange rates relative to the USD, was constructed in a very different age. It was an age when higher US growth meant higher US current account deficits but that age is over. The last US economic contraction ended in June 2009 – almost eight years ago. By June 2009 the US current account deficit had already collapsed from 5.94% of GDP in 3Q 2006 to just 3.6% of GDP. In 4Q 2016 the US current account deficit was just 2.55% of GDP. After almost eight years of growth the US current account deficit, relative to GDP, is smaller than it was when the economic expansion began. This is a new way for the US to grow and it has profound impacts on global financial stability and the outlook for the USD. With Euroland and Japan also running surpluses, the global monetary system, as currently constituted, is bringing tighter monetary policy to EMs and, more importantly, is structurally redundant. This matters in a world where EMs accounted for 79% of world GDP growth from 2010-2015 and the world’s debt to GDP ratio has reached new all time highs. The prospects that the lack of developed world current account deficits creates a global growth slowdown and a debt crisis are thus high.

That tightness of monetary policy in EMs is not necessarily steadily applied as sometimes EMs receive bursts of net capital inflows that offset the problems associated with the lack of developed world current account deficits. Sometimes it works the other way, as net capital outflow exacerbates the tightening of EM monetary policy as central banks act to defend their exchange rates. However, the condition of EM current account deficits goes to the robustness of the system and determines the extent to which EMs are impacted by shifts in capital flows. The deterioration in EM current accounts since 2009 has been marked. In 2009 EMs posted combined current account surpluses of US$238bn, but by 2016 this had become a combined current account deficit of US$79bn. That combined deficit stops the creation of more EM money through the mechanism of foreign exchange intervention, unless they are recipients of more than offsetting net capital inflows. As the US produces an annual current account deficit close to US$500bn, any contraction in that deficit can lead rapidly to major EM current account deteriorations and a further monetary squeeze. From 2008 to 2009 the US current account deficit shrank by US$306bn in what was obviously a severe recession. While a US growth slowdown is unlikely to have such a dramatic impact on the current account today, it will come at a time when EMs are in current account deficits and not the huge surpluses reported the last time US economic growth began to slow during 2008. Now that Ems’ large current account surpluses have been eradicated, they are much more vulnerable to any contraction in the US$500bn current account deficit.

A move to an even smaller US current account deficit, hastened by a US growth slowdown, all but guarantees that our current global monetary system, dominated by EMs’ insistence in managing their exchange rates primarily relative to the USD, would be further tested and result in either devaluations or deflation. Either form of adjustment, in a world where debt-to-GDP ratios have reached all-time highs, would produce debt defaults and a rush to de-gear. As we saw in 2H 2008, any move to a de-gearing results in a rise in the USD as a world repaying debts is a world that is a net buyer of USD. The Bretton Woods system collapsed as the US ran ever-larger current account deficits, undermining faith in their ability to maintain the dollar’s link to gold. Today the failure of the current monetary system is due to the inability of the US and other developed world nations to run sufficiently large current account deficits. This breakdown in the system comes in a very different world from the late nineteen- sixties, when the global monetary system was last breaking down. Today EMs account for 56% of global GDP and 79% of the growth in global GDP; a monetary tightening in those jurisdictions has profound impacts for global growth and inflation.

Creating insufficient monetary growth, due to lack of developed world deficits, in the EMs managing their exchange rates relative to the USD forces them to either devalue or deflate.Most politicians chose the path of devaluation rather than the pain of internal deflation and the USD moves ever higher as the USD price of exports from EMs moves ever lower. When the Bretton Woods system collapsed, inflation erupted as the fetters on money creation in the US and elsewhere were lifted. As our current monetary system collapses, through major devaluations relative to the USD, we should initially expect deflation as the USD price of globally traded goods collapses and as some EMs are crushed under their huge foreign currency debt obligations. With interest rates and inflation at such low levels, faith in the ability of central bankers to summon a cure for this deflationary shock will likely be very low.

Subscribers to The Solid Ground will have read about the key structural forces that are undermining the value of the Yen (insufficient savings to fund the state), the RMB (the end of mercantilism), the Euro (a recognition that the political union to support the currency union cannot progress) and the currencies of key EMs that have seen insufficient improvement in their external accounts to make their foreign currency debt burdens sustainable. It is these structural problems outside the US that will fundamentally drive the USD higher, putting ever further pressure on those whose currencies are linked to the USD. Adding a US growth slowdown and an even smaller US current account deficit to this equation will only act to push the USD higher.

Of course, the forecast for a continuation of the USD bull market could be wrong. The route to a weaker USD is a scale of US economic acceleration that produces a rapid widening of the current account deficit. The failure of the US current account deficit to widen throughout the 2009-2017 economic expansion provides significant evidence that no such blow-out in the US current account deficit is likely. It seems that the President would be minded to take direct action to attack any such deterioration in the US current account as he seeks to put ‘America First’. So of course a weaker USD is possible, but it remains not probable. It is also worth remembering that even during such periods of growth before, the USD still managed to rise from 1982-1985 and 1995-2001. So the USD can rise if US growth slows or if it accelerates! That will sound too good to be true but it is based upon the fact that the US economy has changed for the first time since the end of Bretton Woods. This is a country that can grow without increasing the size of its current account deficit. That one fact changes the world and changes the USD.

There has been a very dramatic change in the consensus on markets since February 2016. Even before the election of President Trump the market had changed to reflect reflation and discount deflation. This analyst sees no reason for such optimism unless there is a rapid and material deterioration in developed world external accounts and, in particular, in the US external accounts. China has been the seat of global reflation since February 2016 but its policy makers’ ability to dictate higher back lending and money growth must ultimately be entirely incompatible with its commitment to manage its exchange rate. That incompatability is evident in the surge in key RMB interest rates since the election of President Trump. Across EMs the stark choice remains for either deflation or devaluation and both are entirely contrary to consensus thinking. Those betting on accelerating global growth and a higher USD are missing the key problem that developed world growth is seemingly incapable of producing worsening external accounts. Until that changes, it is better to expect deflation than inflation and any slowing of US growth will increase deflationary forces and push the USD higher. The more that happens, EMs face a simple choice regarding their exchange rate management regimes – ‘cut it loose or let it drag em down’. They’ll ‘cut it loose’ and the chaos associated with the political necessity of formulating a new global monetary system will begin. Then the answers to all the questions that count can only be found not in growth/inflation/interest rate differentials but in the political system that for all investors is ‘the darkness on the edge of town’.

‘Tonight I’ll be on that hill `cause I can’t stop

I’ll be on that hill with everything I got

With our lives on the line where dreams are found and lost

I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost

For wanting things that can only be found

In the darkness on the edge of town

In the darkness on the edge of town’

Mr Market Flunks the Marshmallow Test

An excellent presentation on global markets by Kevin duffy outlining  bull and bear case

“We must not forget that, for the last six or eight years monetary policy all over the world has followed the advice of the stabilizers. It is high time that their influence, which has already done harm enough, should be overthrown.”
~ Friedrich Hayek, 1932

www.grantspub.com/files/presentations/Kevin Duffy Presentation.pdf

Peter Zeihan on Three new wars

This article is on geopolitics and how shale is reshaping global alliances. George friedman and Peter Zeihan are two of my favourite thinkers and this is the third interview of Peter with gavekal.

The end of American dependence upon extra-continental energy sources does more than sever the largest of the remaining ties that bind America’s fate to the wider world, it sets into motion a veritable cavalcade of trends: the reindustrialization of the United States, the accelerated breakdown of the global order, and a series of wideranging military conflicts that will shape the next two decades.– Peter Zeihan,“The Absent Superpower

There are three big conflicts I see that could cause a major schism between what the US pays for oil and what the rest of the world pays for it. I’m talking about a potential global oil price of around $150 per barrel while the US pays only $50 per barrel thanks to shale oil in the US and a resumption of the ban on oil exports. The break-even cost in the United States is around $40. If you put the embargo back in place, you’ve got a functional ceiling on how high
the price can be domestically. If shale overproduces and you can’t export the crude, then it’s a question of refining capacity which can’t be built out that quickly.

Peter Concludes by Saying

By the end of these wars, I would expect us to see around $50 oil in the US, $150 oil in Paris and over $200 oil in Beijing (assuming any crude can make it to Beijing at all). The whole supply chain model that has made East Asia successful for the last 50 years will be gone. All that manufacturing capacity has to relocate, or because of the global demographic breakdown and the energy crisis, all that capacity may just disappear because of lack of demand

 

Charts that show markets are awash in liquidity … dont confuse it with Fundamentals

China House Prices and what a bounce in last 18 months

This is not Vancouver or Australia house price ….. this is San Francisco

But nobody is taking loans for business.For a contraction to start, banks don’t have to call loans.
All that is needed is that bankers become nervous and stop making them.

US Shale Oil is Killing OPEC. US now exports oil and is no longer interested in the security of middle east or its oil

“At the peak of the 2014 boom, the break-even cost of U.S. shale oil was $60. Today, the figure is nearer to $30. In some places, the breakeven cost is just $15 a barrel.”- The Times, March 20.

This one is of ART.The chart is of sales volume.Double Top with 2007 and 2014.At the tops,there must have been a lot of certainty.

Check out the followingThe art piece, “My Bed”was originally sold by the artist for £150,000 in 1999 to an art dealer, for display. In 2015 it was sold at auction for £2.5 million.

Small Business optimisim is soaring. Post Trump Optimism is in Red.Real Earnings are in Black.

JP Morgan believes that used car prices will crash by upto 50%.

China has a huge shadow banking system .China has been responsible for 50% of global credit growth in since last 5 years and china shadow banking aided by cheap liquidity has played a big role in this growth

 

Global government debt at $ 59 trillion

Total global debt (govt+corporate+household) stands at $230 trillion which is more than 300% of total annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the entire world. The United States recorded a government debt equivalent to 104.17 percent of the country’s GDP. If we look at the US debt and narrow the focus to just government debt, then we find that the US accounts for $20 trillion out of nearly $59 trillion or about 1/3rd.

There is too much focus on this $ 20 trillion of US govt debt and less focus on debt owed by emerging market which stands at about 50% greater than that figure. Emerging Market corporate debt share of the global credit market has been increasing and now accounts for about 18% of all U.S. dollar-denominated corporate debt in the world. Emerging Market debt has increased 300% since 2005 alone. The USA has the biggest, most viable economy and reserve currency of the world. If US is the core then rest of the world is Periphery.  The foreign bond defaults in 1931 is what created the Great Depression and it did not NOT because the US defaulted, but because the USA adopted AUSTERITY and allowed deflation to dominate – the same mistake made in Europe today.In absence of global growth pickup ,I see defaults outside of US and it can originate from Europe or emerging markets corporates who have borrowed heavily leading to more capital outflows from rest of the world into US creating huge demand for US dollar. 

In times of crisis Capital always shifts back from periphery to core

Long Awaited “Asian Century” might never come

When Gary Shilling writes you must take note and what Gary writes is not pretty about future of Asian Tigers .

He writes

People in the West, certainly Americans, have long had a fascination with the East, with many predicting an inevitable “Asian century” marked by economic and market dominance. I have long disagreed with the consensus on China and other Asian Tigers, and others are beginning to agree. Many problems stand in the way of the “Asian century.”

There are five main reasons why it won’t get any easier for Asia:

1. Globalization is largely completed

2. The shift from being export-led economies to ones driven by domestic spending, especially by consumers, has been slow

3. There are government and cultural restraints

4. Population problems endure

5. Military threats are growing in Asia, and could severely disrupt stability and retard economic growth if they flare up

He Sums it up nicely……There may well be an “Asian century” in the future, but don’t hold your breath. It took about a millennium for the West to develop meaningful democracy, the rule of law, large middle classes that support domestic economies and all the institutions that are largely lacking in developing Asian lands.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-31/long-awaited-asian-century-might-never-come