Making News: Podcast of Now On-Line of National Radio Appearance on the CCP Virus & U.S. Manufacturing

Tags

CCP Virus, Gordon G. Chang, health security, healthcare products, Making News, manufacturing, supply chains, The John Batchelor Show, Wuhan virus

Sorry this is a little later than usual, but if you click on this link, you’ll be able to listen to the podcast of my Wednesday night appearance on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show describing U.S. manufacturing’s response to the CCP (for Chinese Commnist Party) Virus crisis.

The segment, co-hosted by Gordon G. Chang, dealt both with the gaps exposed by the crisis in America’s healthcare products supply chains (discussed in detail here and here on RealityChek), and with domestic industry’s potential to reshore this production and re-jigger their stateside factories to deal with the surge in demand for pharmaceuticals, their chemical building blocks, medical devices, and surgical instruments and supplies.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Another Wuhan Virus Lesson Globalists Need to Learn

Tags

alliances, allies, China, core deterrence, coronavirus, COVID 19, Eastern Europe, extended deterrence, globalism, Japan, NATO, North Atlantic treaty Organization, North Korea, nuclear deterrence, nuclear war, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Russia, South Korea, Soviet Union, tripwire, Western Europe, Wuhan virus

Here’s a seemingly off-the-wall question: What does the Wuhan Virus have to do with U.S. policy toward its global security alliances?

And here’s why it’s not only not a perfectly sensible and even vital question, but why the best answer is “Plenty”: Because these decades-old globalist arrangements now pose to America risks that look like the coronavirus-in-not-so-miniature. Even worse: The benefits to the United States these days are much more modest than  during the Cold War era when they were created.

The purely national security arguments should by now be familiar to RealityChek regulars. (See here and here for fuller descriptions of the points I’m about to summarize.) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO – which has linked the United States, Europe, and Canada), and the bilateral security relationships between the United States and Japan and South Korea, originally aimed to prevent the Soviet Union from dominating global centers of economic and technological strength and potential, and therefore of military strength and potential.

In fact, these countries and regions were considered so important that American policy made clear that Washington was ready to wage nuclear war – with all the dangers such conflicts would create for the U.S. homeland. Moreover, because the allies (or protectorates, as many call them) understandably doubted that American leaders really would, when the chips were down, “sacrifice New York to save London,” Washington felt compelled to station the U.S. military directly in harm’s way.

The idea was never to stop Soviet or North Korean or Chinese aggression with conventional forces alone. Quite the contrary. These units were intended as trip-wires. The very likelihood that they’d be annihilated was supposed to put irresistable pressure on a U.S. President to respond to attacks with nuclear weapons. In turn, this prospect was supposed to deter U.S. adversaries from attacking in the first place.

Such an approach (called “extended deterrence” by the cognoscenti – as opposed to “core deterrence,” which sought to protect the United States itself) made obvious sense when the United States enjoyed a monopoly on nuclear weapons. It even made arguable (though less obvious) sense when the Soviets reached nuclear parity, and the Chinese developed their own rudimentary nukes.

Since the end of the Cold War, however, it’s made much less sense, and more recent developments have turned this nuclear umbrella border-line – and crazily – suicidal. For the Soviet Union is gone. It’s been partly replaced with a newly aggressive Russia, but the countries most threatened by Moscow are not the economic and technological giants of Western Europe, but the newer NATO members of Eastern Europe – whose security was never remotely vital to the United States, as evinced by the long decades they spent as Soviet satellites or actual parts of the former USSR.

In East Asia, nuclear forces both in China and in North Korea can now not only hit the United States (or in the case of Pyongyang, are rapidly approaching that capability). When it comes to China, these weapons’ launch platforms have become much more difficult for the United States even to find, much less take out before they can be used. In other words, for all the continuing and even growing economic and technological importance of Japan and South Korea – which is considerable – the nuclear threats to America from their leading potential adversaries have grown faster both quantitatively and qualitatively.

And in all these alliance cases, despite President Trump’s clear interest in a fundamentally new America First-type foreign policy, and even though the allies are amply capable of fielding the forces needed to defend themselves, they choose not to. Therefore, U.S. forces still serve as tripwires in both Europe and Asia.

It’s likely that the economic damage done to the United States from a North Korean nuclear nuclear bomb landing in a big American city or two wouldn’t compare to the coronavirus economic damage we’re seeing now and are likely to see. But who can doubt that this damage will be substantial in economic terms, and catastrophic from a humanitarian standpoint? And in the areas hit, the harm to businesses and their workers could well last much longer. Further, the impacts of the kind of much larger retaliatory strikes that could come from China (if it invades Taiwan) or Russia, would be that much greater.

And these prices paid for maintaining current alliance policies would be all the more unacceptable because they are now completely unnecessary – because of the allies’ capabilities, and because so many of the European countries now under this U.S. “nuclear umbrella” are so thoroughly marginal to America’s safety and prosperity.

The globalist supporters of these alliances insist that these risks are indeed acceptable largely because deterrence has made them so remote. That sounds ominously like the optimism expressed by so many Americans (myself included) the day(s) before the Wuhan Virus threat’s scale became all too real. Now it’s increasingly clear that the globalists’ favored policies of indiscriminate free trade and offshoring-happy globalization policies have gravely endangered the nation’s health security as well as its prosperity, at least in the near-term. Let’s not be needlessly blindsided by a calamity triggered by the globalists’ hidebound alliance policies.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Winning Trade War Message from the Last Pre-China Virus Manufacturing Figures

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, Boeing, China, China virus, coronavirus, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, manufacturing production, metals, supply chains, tariffs, Trade, trade wars, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The new Federal Reserve industrial production figures are now out, and although they only bring the story up through February, they contain two vital messages: First, taking into account ongoing safety problems with aerospace giant Boeing (and its vast domestic supply chain), they’re very solid – and reinforce the case that the pre-China Virus manufacturing and overall U.S. economies were faring well despite widespread slowdown fears. Second, they also show that, despite the equally widespread tariff alarmism being mongered throughout the Trump years, domestic manufacturing wound up handling the so-called trade wars just fine.

According to the Fed, inflation-adjusted manufacturing output increased by 0.12 percent month-to-month and remained down on a year-on-year basis (by 0.18 percent). January’s monthly constant dollar production dip was revised down from 0.09 percent to 0.23 percent. Yet this real output is up on net by 1.33 percent since its last low point (last October) and by 0.36 percent since the first full month of significant Trump tariffs (April, 2018).

At the same time, these production levels remain 1.28 percent below those of manufacturing’s last peak – in December, 2018. So these are by no means salad days for domestic industry.

Take a look, however, at the main Boeing-related figures. Aircraft production and parts sank by 5.12 percent sequentially in February. It reached its lowest level since October, 2011 and this drop followed January’s 11.36 percent monthly nosedive.

Moreover, although impossible from the Fed figures to quantify precisely, the production halt of Boeing’s popular 737 Max model that began in January is clearly dragging down output in sectors ranging from metals to industrial machinery to plastics to electronics and instruments.

The rapid recent spread of the coronavirus throughout the United States will start generating very different and much worse manufacturing production and other data going forward. But these latest data show domestic industry’s performance even as tariffs on literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tariff on Chinese and metals inputs used by manufacturers remained firmly in place. And if that doesn’t signal loud and clear that both American producers and consumers were withstanding the Trump trade wars – a New Normal that’s likely to survive the passing of COVID 19 – quite nicely, and in fact that the entire economy had been winning it, what could?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why 2019 Was a Winner for Trump Trade Policies & America

Tags

Barack Obama, Boeing, China, GDP, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, non-oil goods trade deficit, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

OK, let’s cut to the chase regarding the new U.S. trade deficit data. (We’ll analyze today’s report from the Census Bureau more comprehensively tomorrow.)

The most important result revealed by the figures – which bring the story up to December and therefore give us our first look at full-year 2019 development – isn’t that the overall U.S. trade deficit fell year-on-year last year (which alone indicates that President Trump is starting to keep one of his signature campaign promises). It isn’t that the huge annual China goods deficit cratered (by 17.62 percent, the biggest such drop on record – including Great Recession year 2009 – and indicating another promise being kept). It isn’t that the still-huge manufacturing deficit has virtually stabilized despite the safety woes of Boeing, long the generator of major trade surpluses. And it isn’t even that these trade gaps have narrowed even as the economy has continued growing acceptably (which most economists insist is practically impossible, especially for a consumer-heavy country like the United States).

Instead, the most important result is that this economic growth continued in 2019 even as that portion of the trade deficit most influenced by trade policy increased at a particularly slow rate. The obvious conclusions? Trade policy can influence the size and rate of change in the trade deficit, and that the Trump trade policies are working.

To remind, this portion of the trade deficit (which I call the Made in Washington trade deficit) sheds light on the above points because it’s the non-oil goods deficit. It’s highly trade policy sensitive because it strips out of the total trade balance numbers the services balance (because so little progress has been made in worldwide services trade liberalization) as well as the oil balance (because oil is rarely the subject of trade deals or other trade policy decisions).

The table below presents the numbers for the last three years of the Obama administration and the first three of the Trump administration – a comparison that’s apt because these time periods are right next to each other in the current (expansionary) business cycle.

Made in Washington trade deficit % change     GDP % change          ratio

2013-14:        +19.35                                                 +4.42                4.38:1

2014-15:        +21.23                                                 +3.98                5.33:1

2015-16:          +2.41                                                 +2.69                0.97:1

2016-17:          +8.05                                                 +4.30                1.87:1

2017-18:        +12.66                                                 +5.43                2.33:1

2018-19:          +1.75                                                +4.12                 0.42:1

As is obvious from the above, the Made in Washington deficit’s growth rates during the Obama years (measured in pre-inflation terms) have been considerably slower than those of the Trump years. And yet the GDP (gross domestic product) growth rates of the first three Trump years have been notably faster than those of the last three Obama years.

In other words, as made clearest by the right-hand column, which shows the ratio between the two, the link between economic growth and trade deficit growth has been weakening significantly during the Trump years. And the President’s tariff-heavy trade policies have plainly played a major role. All else equal, moreover, that means growth that’s more nationally self-sufficient (no small achievement in a still dangerous world), healthier, and therefore more sustainable.

President Trump makes way too many false or exaggerated boasts about the economy (among other subjects). But the 2019 trade data show that when it comes to trade policy, he’s entitled to considerable bragging rights.

Im-Politic: How Trump is Letting the China Virus Crisis Go to Waste

Tags

CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, China, China trade deal, China virus, coronavirus, Im-Politic, National Institutes of Health, pandemics, pharmaceuticals, Phase One, Trump, Wuhan, Wuhan virus, Xi JInPing

As tragic as the coronavirus has been for victims in China and elsewhere and their loved ones, both the humanitarian and the Machiavellian in me can’t help but think that President Trump is squandering some great and closely related opportunities being created by the outbreak.

To be sure, the President hasn’t completely ignored the disease. He tweeted yesterday that “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!.”

He stated at a January 22 press conference at the big global economy conference in Davos, Switzerland that the U.S. government has a plan to contain the virus in the United States. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health say they’re working on a cure – in tandem with the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

But given that the United States is the world leader in medical research, and given that the President has just (justifiably) eaten China’s lunch with the new Phase One trade deal, it seems like much more could and should be done, and in a much higher profile way.

For example, the President, who isn’t shy about broadcasting his achievements and intentions, should announce that’s he’s directing federal research agencies to treat the coronavirus threat as a top priority, as well as seek a similar commitment from U.S. medical schools and drug companies. And how about a summit of American medical research leaders from the public and private sectors to brainstorm both on addressing the present danger and the overall growing threat of pandemics resulting from the ever smaller world being created every day by increasing worldwide commerce and travel?

In fact, why even restrict this meeting to American participants? The President should think about either inviting their foreign counterparts to the session as well, or to a follow-up meeting.

That’s what my humanitarian instincts tell me.

And my more political self? It would advise the President explicitly and publicly to offer his buddy, Chinese leader Xi Jinping, whatever assistance the Chinese need. For good measure, he should propose sending a team of American scientists and public health experts from the government and private sector to China to assess the situation first-hand (including the status of the disease and China’s progress in combating it) and develop recommendations to improve the Chinese response.

Clearly, these actions would serve humanitarian ends. But they would also put Beijing’s dictators in quite the pickle. Right after having their clocks cleaned in the trade negotiations, they’d be put in a position of accepting American help (which would involve a huge loss of the face so critical in Chinese culture), or declining assistance (which can only further anger a Chinese public that’s already not thrilled with the crisis management skills of either the central government or local officials). In other words, either way, the United States scores political points with public opinion both worldwide and in China in particular.

Meanwhile, no one could legitimately criticize Mr. Trump for declaring that all agriculture imports from China are being banned, since the CDC admits that, although it lacks “any evidence to suggest that animals or animal products imported from China pose a risk for spreading 2019-nCoV [the technical name for the virus in question] in the United States,” that “This is a rapidly evolving situation.”

It’s become a well-worn cliché that the Chinese word for “crisis” combines the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.” But even though this specific claim seems questionable at best, the underlying idea and logic are compelling, and need to be applied to U.S. coronavirus policy liji (Chinese for “immediately”).  There’s no excuse, to quote former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, for letting the opportunity go to waste.

Making News: Talking China Trade Deal with Jersey Joe, John Batchelor…& More!

Tags

AlphaWeek.com, America First, Breitbart News Tonight, Breitbart.com, China, economic nationalism, energy, enforcement, Gordon G. Chang, IndustryToday.com, Jersey Joe, Joe Piscopo, John Carney, Making News, Middle East, Phase One, Populism, RealVision.com, tariffs, The Epoch Times, The Joe Piscopo Show, The John Batchelor Show, trade deal, trade deficit, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that I was interviewed this morning on the new U.S.-China trade deal on “The Joe Piscopo Show” on New York City’s AM 970 The Answer radio station.  Sorry that I could only give limited advance notice, but the podcast is on-line already!  Special bonus:  Jersey Joe and I also dealt with the Major League Baseball cheating scandal, too!

In addition last night, I was back on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio program to discuss the so-called Phase One agreement with John and co-host Gordon G. Chang.  You can listen to the podcast here.

Tuesday night, I was interviewed on a wide range of foreign and domestic issues on “Breitbart News Tonight.”  Click on this link and scroll down till you see my January 14 segment.

The Breitbart.com folks were also kind enough to write up some portions of this segment in website items here and here.

On Tuesday, meanwhile, Breitbart‘s excellent economics and finance editor John Carney quoted me in his detailed analysis of the latest U.S. government report on consumer prices – which reveals whether the Trump trade wars have sparked any meaningful inflation.  You can read it at this link.  (Spoiler alert for everyone who hasn’t been paying attention to RealityChek‘s own coverage of this issue:  They haven’t.)

Meanwhile, The Epoch Times has quoted my views recently on energy security and what it means for America’s policy in the hopelessly dysfunctional Middle East, and on the progress made in reducing the U.S. the trade deficit.

On January 6, IndustryToday.com re-published – at this link – my recent blog post on the latest data undermining the claim that President Trump has betrayed his working class and middle class voters.  (Another spoiler alert:  These data indicate that he hasn’t.)

Finally, on January 2, the popular finance website AlphaWeek.com posted the video of my December RealVision.com interview on the virtues of an America First approach to U.S. foreign and trade policy – and whether Mr. Trump’s measures fit the bill.  Catch it here.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

 

 

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Case that Phase One Passes the Enforceability Test

Tags

China, enforcement, Phase One, tariffs, Trade, trade deal, trade talks, Trump, unilateralism, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Not only has the “Phase One” trade deal now been signed by the United States and China, but official texts have now been released. And my initial read indicates that the Trump administration just might have come up with an effective enforcement regime – though success here will depend on U.S. governments (including this one) displaying nerves of steel.

At the same time, the enforcement terms raise the question of why the President felt the need to reach this point via a treaty, rather than simply punish China unilaterally for economic transgressions – as his tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of imports from the People’s Republic (most of which remain firmly in place) already accomplish.

By way of background, from the beginning, I’ve doubted that any such agreement could be adequately verified from the U.S. standpoint. The main reasons: The bureaucracies China uses to implement the various features of its trade and broader commercial predation are too big and secretive for any outsider to monitor in any meaningful sense. (Further complicating matters – many of the worst culprits are provincial and city governments.) Therefore, documenting abuses in any kind of detail – or verifying any Chinese promises of structural change – has looked like an insurmountable obstacle to standard, legalistic dispute-resolution systems that could actually work satisfactorily for American plaintiffs.

As a result, I’ve argued that the best way to handle these transgressions is for the U.S. government to impose sweeping tariffs on China (because its predation is a systemic plan, not the product of individual entities’ decisions), and to deal with additional, individual complaints by acting as judge, jury, and court of appeals. And because of my conviction that the United States holds the clear upper hand in its relations with China, I saw no need to permit any Chinese involvement in these processes.

The Phase One deal certainly can’t be relied on to eliminate or even reduce Chinese opacity. But the way the treaty reads, it doesn’t need to. The key appear to be these passages (on page 7-3), which set out the procedures to be followed if the United States and China can’t, after a series of meetings and “consultations” agree on resolving a complaint. Here’s the first:

“…the Complaining Party may resort to taking action based on facts provided during the consultations, including by suspending an obligation under this Agreement or by adopting a remedial measure in a proportionate way that it considers appropriate with the purpose of preventing the escalation of the situation and maintaining the normal bilateral trade relationship.”

“Remedial measures” clearly means punitive tariffs, and just as clearly, they can unilaterally applied.

It’s true, as some trade policy critics have fretted, that the agreement gives the Chinese the same rights – as well as the option of retaliating if Beijing believes the United States has been acting in “bad faith.”

But here’s where the nerves of steel come in. The retaliation that’s permitted isn’t tit-for-tat – as in the case of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Indeed, even challenging such retaliation isn’t allowed – a right that can always frustrate justice by delaying it. Instead, the retaliation required is no less than exiting from the entire deal. The system can work in America’s favor if U.S. leaders either display confidence that China won’t take such a dramatic step (because the export-heavy Chinese economy still needs the American market much more than vice versa), or if they resolve to tariff China heavily if this U.S. bluff is called.

Incidentally, the language also makes clear that, in order to go ahead with tariffs, Washington won’t need much evidence any kind of Chinese failure to respond adequately to complaints. In fact, no meaningful evidentiary standards are specified at all. In other words, it’s entirely up to the United States to decide on the threshold for action.

Can China take advantage of the same provisions? In theory, yes. But nothing in the deal would prevent the United States from treating as treaty violations any Chinese complaints it regards as unmerited – and credibly threatening to retaliate by withdrawing unless Beijing backs down.

The deal also could well prevent a big potential problem from emerging – fear of Chinese retaliation (which itself might be tough even to identify because of Chinese bureaucratic secrecy) by U.S. victims of Chinese predation (and especially by victims that are operating in China). Such fears have prevented many of these victims from complaining publicly about Chinese abuses in the first place.

But the text on pages 7-2 and 7-3 appear to permit Washington to keep the name of the plaintiff’s business confidential. So, at least in theory, problem preempted.

As suggested above, however, the deal looks so promising, and permits so much implicit U.S. unilateralism, that it’s difficult to understand why President Trump decided to proceed bilaterally t begin with. Was he worried about being criticized for being reckless and not going the extra mile to deal with the Chinese respectfully and accommodate their legitimate concerns? Perhaps. But I strongly suspect that, at least if the agreement works out as I expect, he’ll face such accusations anyway. And by negotiating, he’s lost precious time to provide tariff relief for U.S.-based producers who need it, and to permit other companies to adjust their supply chains to a new tariff-heavier era sooner rather than later (and to make adequate progress well before November, 2020).

Clearly, however, the negotiating train has left the station. And between this effective enforcement system, Chinese promises of big import increases from the United States, and steep tariffs remaining on most imports from China (which cope with the systemic issue), it looks like a major and important economic and political win for a self-proclaimed master negotiator, and the entire domestic economy – if he makes full use of it.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. After-Inflation Wages Could Still Use More Inflation

Tags

Barack Obama, election 2020, inflation-adjusted wages, manufacturing, private sector, real wages, recovery, Trump, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This morning’s real wages figures from the Labor Department (for December) contained an unusually diverse grab bag of results, and with a presidential election year now officially underway, perhaps the most newsworthy are those that could well affect the race for the White House – and which on balance seem unfavorable to President Trump.

In addition, though, some other results undermine a major belief about how after-inflation paychecks have fared during the current (record length) economic recovery versus its two immediate predecessors.

Not that the news was all bad for the President and his supporters (and anyone else rooting for a stronger American economy). Yes, overall, inflation-adjusted wages in the private sector dipped sequentially for the second time in three months – by 0.09 percent. (The Labor Department doesn’t track real public sector wages because their trends say more about politicians’ decisions than about economic fundamentals).

But if these preliminary figures hold tightly enough, the 2019 year-on-year improvement of 0.64 percent will be higher than 2018’s 0.56 percent increase.

At the same time, wage growth decelerated throughout 2019 – from 0.37 percent between January and June to 0.27 percent between June and December.

Real manufacturing wages fared better, continuing a year-long trend. Month-to-month in December they climbed by 0.18 percent, and their year-on-year increase and improvement were stronger than that of the private sector, too. The latest annual rise was 0.74 percent – up from the previous year’s flatline. And throughout 2019, they increased at the same 0.37 percent rates during both halves of the year.

But the results were less encouraging for non-supervisory workers in both the private sector overall and in manufacturing. By certain measures, paychecks for the lowest paid U.S. workers have been improving faster than those for the workforce overall. And using the Labor Department’s methodology of distinguishing supervisory from non-supervisory workers provides some support for that finding.

For example, on an annual basis, in 2019 and 2018, inflation-adjusted wages increased faster for both non-supervisory manufacturing and blue-collar workers than those wages for all workers, as shown here:

                                     Total private     N/S private     Total mfg      N/S mfg

Year-on-year, 2019:         +0.64%           +0.75%          +0.74%        +0.45%

Year-on-year, 2018:        +0.56%           +1.63%                0%          +1.14%

Yet the table also shows 2018-19 deceleration for both groups.

Moreover, on month in December, real wages for these blue-collar workers performed worse in absolute terms than for all private sector and manufacturing workers – actually falling by 0.21 percent for the former (the biggest decline since October, 2018’s 0.22 percent drop) and increasing by just 0.11 percent for the latter.

And deceleration continued through the year. Between the first and second halves of 2019, constant dollar wages increases for the private sector fell from 0.53 percent to 0.21 percent, and from 0.23 percent to 0.22 percent for manufacturing.

The impact of Boeing’s safety-related woes on aircraft manufacturing per se and on the company’s huge domestic supply chain could explain some of these disappointing figures for industry. But so could the uncertainties created either by Mr. Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies, or by their ragged implementation, or both. Further, as the numbers indicate, real wage weakness isn’t simply a manufacturing problem.

Perhaps most important for Mr. Trump, real wages’ performance during the first 34 months of his term in office (starting with February, 2017, his first full month), have lagged their increases during the most comparable period in Barack Obama’s presidency – his last 34 months in office (ending in January, 2017). Here are the results:

                                       Total private      N/S private      Total mfg        N/S mfg

1^st 34 Trump months:         +2.53%           +2.72%           +0.65%          +2.77%

last 34 Obama months:      +3.50%           +3.97%          +3.05%           +2.97%

Finally, the new real wages data show that when it comes to this gauge, the current economic recovery stacks up unexpectedly well with the two previous expansions where a reasonable amount of statistics exist – for non-supervisory workers. The comparison is especially striking between the current expansion and the 1990s expansion – which is widely viewed as an excellent one for both the economy and America’s employees.

                                                               Private    N/S private    mfg     N/S mfg

1990s expansion (2Q 91-1Q 01):             n/a           +6.37%       n/a      +2.18%

bubble expansion (4Q 01-4Q 07):           n/a            +0.35%       n/a      -2.77%

current expansion (2Q 09 – present):  +6.30%        +6.79%   +1.59%   +3.01%

Unfortunately for President Trump and Trump-ers, though, this longer-term picture isn’t likely to impress voters as much as more recent developments. And when it comes to workers’ after-inflation wages, he clearly has more work to do.

Making News: Speaking at a D.C. Conference Today on Antitrust and Trade Policy

Tags

antitrust, competition, free trade, globalization, Im-Politic, monopolies, monopoly, The American Conservative, The American Prospect, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to speak this morning at a conference in Washington, D.C. on the increasingly weird relationship between American trade policy and American antitrust policy.

The overall event focuses on the troubling rise of monopolies and oligopolies in general in the U.S. economy in recent decades, and is co-sponsored by The American Conservative and The American Prospect – two magazines pretty far apart on the political spectrum.  My own presentation will draw on my article earlier this year on the subject in the summer issue of American Affairs.  (Yes, yet another political publication!).

If you live in the D.C. area, the event will be taking place at the National Press Club downtown starting at 11 AM.  If not, I haven’t yet found anywhere where the conference can be seen live on-line.  But if I do before I actually mount the rostrum, I’ll try to send it out.  And of course, once a link to any video is posted, I’ll let you know ASAP.

In the meantime, wish me luck, and keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Can Free Trade Nowadays Really Maximize Global Well-Being?

Tags

China, East Asia, economics, free markets, free trade, globalization, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As nearly every economist worth their salt can tell you, as far as their profession is concerned, the prime end goal of liberalizing global trade as completely as possible is maximizing the entire world’s economic well-being. And theoretical, purely economic criticisms of the freest possible global trade have been dominated by questioning whether efforts to achieve this goal have truly have kept this promise, or are capable of doing so.

I don’t mean to minimize the importance of this debate, or others focusing on related but distinctive issues bringing into play non-economic considerations – like whether trade and broader economic policies need to broaden their definition of well-being to include goals like increasing feelings of happiness and security, or like fighting climate change and other threats to the environment, or like preserving America’s national security, or like ensuring that the economic well-being being created is more equitably shared.

But these days, it seems that American policymakers in particular need to ask themselves a more fundamental question: Assuming the goal can be reached, is the greatest possible worldwide economic (that is, material) well-being actually a goal that the global trading system should be trying to reach? And all peoples and governments of good will, not simply the United States, have a vital stake in figuring out the right answer – especially if they place noteworthy value on free markets.

The presence of the word “governments” in the previous sentence points to a central complication that the welfare-maximizing enthusiasts seem to be missing.

Specifically, no one of good will could reasonably oppose maximizing the economic welfare of all the world’s individuals (assuming, of course, that whatever non-economic challenges caused by high growth – e.g., environmental threats – aren’t ignored).

But even leaving aside strategic and national security considerations, the organization of the world’s individuals into governments creates a big problem with this objective. Specifically, many of these governments have organized their national economies in turn around principles and practices that have nothing to do not only with free trade, but with free markets or any aspect of economic liberalism themselves – the idea that individuals and other economic actors (like businesses) have the right to make the (legal) economic choices they regard as serving their own best economic and/or non-economic interests.

China is the obvious example. Its system holds that, even though at a very local or micro level, individual and other actors (because of the point I’m about to make, I’ve always hesitated to use the word “businesses” or “companies” to describe any Chinese goods- or service-producing entities) can be permitted to act on their own impulses, any such economic decisions with broader effects should be made or be subject to the control of the state. And all resources related to the economy are ultimately accountable to the state as well.

There’s no legitimate doubt that freer trade has helped lift hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty, and of course contributed to the economic well-being of myriad non-Chinese individuals and businesses and other entities that sell to this huge, burgeoning market, the growing prosperity of Chinese individuals. But there can also be no legitimate doubt that this free trade has also greatly strengthened a Chinese government whose practices clearly amount to a broad rejection of free trade and the rest of free market thinking.

Until now, it’s been easy to argue that whatever Beijing’s interventionist record, freeing up trade between China and the rest of the globe has improved the world’s wealth on net, even though China may have been the greatest beneficiary, and even though workers in high-income countries (to cite one prominent example) may have paid an economic price on net. 

But all this wealth creation unquestionably has strengthened this command-and-control Chinese system, its global footprint, and its influence over the world economy. If you believe in the virtues of free markets, how can this kind of development possibly keep increasing overall world economic well-being over any significant period of time (as opposed to spurring the kinds of brief boom periods that tend to become busts)? And if it can (and statist China has been a big global economic player for many years now), then maybe it’s time to rethink faith in free markets to begin with?

Of course, it’s important to keep in mind a long-time standard explanation of how China’s economic rise can be squared with support for continual global trade liberalization. It’s the confidence that more and freer trade with China will promote a liberalization of China’s domestic economy that will inevitably loosen the state’s grip trade and other foreign economic policies. But as known to anyone who’s been following China issues in recent years, Beijing has been reasserting control over much of the paltry amount of economic activity that it had previously ceded. Moreover, this trend didn’t begin with current leader Xi Jinping. So at the very least, the optimists are now under a heavy burden of proof to show that continuing to free up trade with China, or even fighting Trump-ian American backsliding, will maximize global welfare indirectly, by fostering Chinese internal economic liberalization.

Given China’s immense size, a China exception to the trade-spurring-welfare-maximization claim would be crucial enough. But it’s not just China. Economic intervention even dwarfing that practiced by the United States (including but hardly limited to the massive response to the financial crisis by the Bush and Obama administrations, and especially the still considerable stimulus supplied by the Federal Reserve) is common the world over. Gradations vary considerably, but fascinatingly, and perhaps revealingly, its strongest in East Asia, the region that, even leaving China out, almost everyone agrees has been the biggest net winner from trade liberalization going back to the early post-World War II period.

Unlike China, some of the leading East Asian beneficiaries of freer global trade, like Japan and South Korea, are U.S. security allies. But they conform with no reasonable definitions of free market systems, either. Should American policy, and the policies of other more market-oriented economies, support making these countries and their highly interventionist systems stronger, richer, and more influential as well?

China’s rise and increasingly anti-American actions on many fronts have prompted speculation that current bilateral tensions might eventually split today’s highly integrated global economy into separate, Cold War-like U.S.- and Chinese-dominated spheres. In fact, this may be a Trump administration goal. So far, this talk has emphasized the intertwined technology and national security reasons for pursuing this goal. But if free markets are all they’re cracked up to be, it may also be warranted for solely economic reasons.