(What’s Left of) Our Economy: When Industries Disappear

Tags

apparel, big government, Breitbart.com, conservatves, embroidery, Frances Martel, Immigration, labor unions, manufacturing, New Jersey, skills, textiles, Union City, unions, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Until I read Frances Martel’s “Hanging by a Thread,” I used to think of Union City as little more than one of those bleak-looking smallish northern New Jersey municipalities the Amtrak trains pass through on their way between New York City and points south.  How wrong I was!  And for such wide-ranging policy and political reasons!  

Not that you can’t simply enjoy her long feature for Breitbart.com for the fascinating descriptions of what makes her hometown special geologically (e.g., it sits on lots of Manhattan bedrock-like granite, good for supporting factories with heavy machines and multistory housing) and demographically (because it developed fairly late in the 19^th century, its population was always dominated by immigrants).

Clearly important as well is Martel’s main theme – how manufacturing built solid prosperity for Union City from the get-go, and how its demise, due to developments like (but not restricted to) offshoring-obsessed U.S. trade policies helped bring punishingly hard times. (Full disclosure: Martel interviewed me for the article, and quoted me quite generously.)

But if you’re thinking this is only an article for trade and/or manufacturing mavens, or for New Jersey history aficionadoes, you’re sorely mistaken. For along the way, “Hanging by a Thread” offers important insights into how these closely related subjects profoundly affect many of the nation’s other major issues and challenges.

For example, Martel offers a novel twist on the notion that the United States welcomed so many immigrants so consistently (though not always) from the mid-19^th century onwards in particular because of its urgent need for unskilled labor. No doubt most of the newcomers were poorly educated. But as “Hanging” makes clear, industry during this period used lots of complicated machinery, including the embroidery sector that became concentrated in Union City.

As Union City’s official historian told Martel, many of its first immigrants came from Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and other parts of Europe with major textile industries, and brought with them extensive experience working with such devices that employers clearly found valuable.

Since skills (of different kinds, of course) remain so crucial to economic success today, Union City’s past raises the question of whether – as Open Borders advocates seem to believe – the United States today should indiscriminately welcome immigrants regardless of skill levels and gainful employability.

Two other messages coming through loud and clear from Martel’s research and analysis are especially important for conservatives to heed. The first has to do with unions. Martel’s parents were hard-line anti-communists who fled Castro’s Cuba, and her mother worked in apparel. The author explains that these arrangements were seen as “a critical part of the factory ecosystem.” The following exchange, with her mother speaking first, makes the point vividly:

“‘I have always had a good union. It works, I think. It works to have a union because without a union, in a private place, you’re screwed,’ she told me.

“‘You don’t feel that there is a conflict between that and being a capitalist?’” I asked…..

“‘No. What? Being a capitalist? No,’ she replied, with confusion. ‘No, that has nothing to do with socialism, it’s just so that the worker has someone to defend them. If you don’t have a job, they can fire you whenever. That’s not fair. To throw you out for no reason, it’s unfair ifyou are working well.’”

Martel’s second message for conservatives actually echoes a point I’ve made before (e.g., here): The more enthusiastically traditional free trade policies are pursued by American leaders, the bigger government’s going to get. But as Martel makes clear, these approaches to the global economy are bound to generate needs that far exceed the kinds of welfare state benefits (ranging from income support to heavily subsidized healthcare) used to keep living standards above third world levels (or at least try to do so).

As the Union City example shows, relentless globalization can also turbocharge government’s role in economic development itself. The author explains that, since 2000, Union City Mayor Bob Stack (a big-city machine politician if ever there was one)

“took the reins on the eve of the guillotine falling on embroidery and has taken to meticulously rebuilding the identity of the city. He tore down Roosevelt Stadium, the sports venue at the heart of the city, to build a new Union City High School – with a stadium on the roof. Union City previously boasted two high schools, one for Union Hill and one for West Hoboken, that Stack turned into middle schools. He built parks in honor of the city’s Cuban, Colombian, and Dominican populations, and an ‘International Park.’ Seemingly every other street has a water park open in the summer for children to play in – the biggest, Firefighters’ Memorial Park, boasts an Olympic-sized swimming pool. His administration also refurbished the downtown library into the Musto Cultural Center and built its replacement, the library at José Martí Middle School (which his administration also built), in the shadow of what was once St. Michael’s monastery, an imposing Catholic historic site that now houses a Korean Presbyterian congregation.”

In other words, Union City realistically recognized the choices before it, and rejected “the option much of the Rust Belt took: do nothing, abandon ship, hope the invisible hand swoops in before you hit the concrete.” As a result (and also because of its proximity to New York City), it’s more than avoided the ghost town fates of counterparts like Gary, Indiana, Youngstown, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The (Dangerously) False Choice Between the Virus and a Restart

Tags

Angus Deaton, Ann Case, Big Business, CCP Virus, coronavirus, Deaths of Despair, growth, Jobs, lockdown, public health, shutdown, small business, stress, The New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman, Trump, unemployment, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

And here I thought that Americans were starting to understand that defeating the CCP Virus and thus protecting public health on the one hand, and restarting economic activity as soon as possible on the other, are not sharply conflicting imperatives. They’re mutually reinforcing – including for public health reasons. Silly me.

One sign was this column by The New York Times‘ Thomas L. Friedman – not someone who’s career-defining predictions and analysis (like the always beneficial and inevitable expansion of economic globalization) have stood up real well. All the same, as one expert quoted by Friedman observed:

“Income is one of the stronger predictors of health outcomes — and of how long we live. Lost wages and job layoffs are leaving many workers without health insurance and forcing many families to forego health care and medications to pay for food, housing, and other basic needs. People of color and the poor, who have suffered for generations with higher death rates, will be hurt the most and probably helped the least. They are the housekeepers in the closed hotels and the families without options when public transit closes. Low-income workers who manage to save the money for groceries and reach the store may find empty shelves, left behind by panic shoppers with the resources for hoarding.’’

P.S. – This expert is a noted public health authority, not an economist callously focused on money and output.

If you still doubt how worsening economic fortunes can literally be a large-scale killer, check out the work of the husband-wife team of Angus Deaton and Ann Case. Yes, they’re economists. But since 2015, these Princeton University scholars have been documenting how deteriorating well-being has helped fuel an historic rise in mortality among middle aged, working class whites. This year, they’ve published the results of their research in a book (appropriately) titled Deaths of Despair. Serious health problems with economic roots have been identified among African Americans as well.

Nonetheless, President Trump’s statement yesterday setting a target date of Easter (April 12) for restarting economic activity was greeted by a howl of protests accusing him of ignoring public health experts’ pleas, and placing his reelection hopes (which, the argument goes, depend almost exclusively on his economic policy record) over the lives of [FILL IN YOUR FAVORITE NUMBER] of Americans. Could anything be eviller?

There’s a counter-argument of course, at least in theory: Cash payments to workers could keep their incomes up and address these economy-related health threats even as most of the economy remains closed. The problem, though, is that without support for business (especially smaller companies, which are big employers collectively but often lack big cash cushions or access to affordable credit even in the best of times), massive payments could (which would be needed as long as workers have regular bills to pay) last a lot longer than the current health emergency because many such companies are likely to close for good, and leave their workers in the lurch, if they don’t start regaining customers fast.

Moreover, these small business vulnerabilities don’t exist in isolation because so many make much of their money selling to big businesses. So when the latter run into trouble because of a weak economy, the little guys – and their workers – inevitably will suffer, too.

So unless you’re a diehard Never Trump-er, and/or know absolutely nothing about the economy or Americans’ health and are unwilling to learn, you’ll recognize that the supposed choice between reopening the economy before too long (if not necessarily by Easter) and saving American lives is a false one. American policy, in other words, will have to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time. The good news is that, as The Times‘ Friedman and others have noted, any number of approaches are available to achieve the best of both worlds that the nation urgently needs.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Thank Goodness Free Trade Zealots Didn’t Completely Destroy the U.S. Textiles Industry

Tags

apparel, Apple, health security, healthcare products, manufacturing, NAFTA, National Council of Textile Organizations, NCTO, North American Free Trade Agreement, offshoring, textile, The Race to the Bottom, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The news media have been filled lately with encouraging stories like this one from the Financial Times – reporting that “US factories that usually mass produce hoodies and T-shirts are being retooled to make face masks as chief executives in the clothing industry try to alleviate shortages of equipment to combat coronavirus. A group of nine American apparel companies began producing the masks on Monday….”

Moreover, according to their main industry organization, companies like these and their domestic manufacturing plants “make a broad range of inputs and finished products used in an array of personal protective equipment (PPE) and medical nonwoven/textile supplies, including surgical gowns, face masks, antibacterial wipes, lab coats, blood pressure cuffs, cotton swabs and hazmat suits. These items are vital to the government’s effort to ramp up emergency production of these critical supplies.”

These actions are not only commendable and critically important nowadays. They’re also a major reminder that it’s fortunate in the extreme that there are still domestic textile and apparel industries with production in the United States – and that this sector has survived despite every effort made by pre-Trump Presidents and Congresses either to put them out of business and send them offshore.

Washington’s motivation? Nothing personal or political – just blind adherence to the bedrock economic principle of comparative advantage, which simply put holds that if other countries make certain products more efficiently than the United States (with or without subsidies, by the way), U.S. policy should simply permit the those stateside industries to wither and die, in full confidence that Americans will always be able to import whatever they need whenever they need it.

Geopolitics was at work, too.  Garment-making in particular is the kind of “starter” sector needed by developing countries to start down the road toward industrialization and therefore the broader economic progress they understandably covet. As a result, foreign policy makers viewed chunks of the U.S. industry as an ideal offering for winning and keeping allies in the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union.    

A labor-intensive sector like apparel was consigned to this fate decades ago. But a sector like textiles was treated similarly – even though it’s the kind of capital- and technology-intensive industry in which high-income, advanced economies like America’s are supposed to excel. Moreover, as countless textile executives with whom I’ve spoken over the years have emphasized, even though they (who make the fabrics and similar materials) differ significantly from the clothing makers (who essentially cut and sew the stuff together), their fates have been closely connected. For the apparel companies are prime customers for the textile producers (though far from the only ones, as you’ll realize if you’ve ever owned, e.g., a carpet), and foreign governments could be counted on to give their own textile sectors a leg up in sales by throwing up all manner of obstacles to U.S.-owned firms supplying overseas garment makers.

In fact, pre-Trump administrations continued to dismiss the textile industry long after its potential became clear for creating all sorts of high tech fabrics with breakthrough qualities like temperature and odor control and bio-monitoring capabilities.

It’s true that the companies could always follow what you might call the “Apple model” – after the electronics giant’s strategy of researching, engineering, and designing its products domestically, and sending the manufacturing overseas. But as I documented nearly two decades ago in my globalization book, The Race to the Bottom, once industries offshore production, many of these so-called white collar activities tend to follow – since there’s nothing like physical proximity to generate the kind of intensive, interactive collaboration between labs and shop floors often needed to spark innovation.

Moreover, as Americans are learning today, you can be the world’s innovation leader by leaps and bounds, but if you lack the domestic production facilities when emergencies arise, you may be standing at the end of the line for supplies of vital products.  In fact, as of late last week, no fewer than 38 countries had limited exports of healthcare-related goods.

So it’s pretty appalling to see how successful pre-Trump U.S. leaders were in stripping the nation of these capabilities. Federal Reserve statistics tell us that inflation-adjusted production of textiles in the United States has sunk by just over half since January, 1994 – when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect and officially ushered in a long offshoring-happy phase of U.S. trade policy. And if you think that’s terrible (which it is), it’s a performance that positively shines when compared to apparel (and leather goods) production. That’s down more than 86 percent during this period.

Interestingly, just two years before NAFTA’s advent, a pair of vocalists, Fontella Bass and Bobby McLure, released a song titled “You’ll Miss Me (When I’m Gone).” What a near-tragedy that shortsighted American trade policymakers didn’t realize how thoroughly this message can apply to major industries. What a blessing that the nation’s remaining textile and apparel makers chose to hang on. And thank goodness that the nation has a President today who clearly recognizes the imperative of Making it in America not only in textiles and apparel, but across the manufacturing spectrum. 

P.S. Full disclosure: For nearly two decades, funders of my work at the U.S. Business and Industry Council included a major domestic textile company. At the same time, the firm suddenly and unceremoniously dumped the organization in 2009 (and not for lack of resources). So my warm and fuzzy feelings toward the sector are limited.

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: When Washington Slept on America’s Dangerous Dependency on Foreign Healthcare Products

Tags

active pharmaceutical ingredients, Bureau of Industry and Security, China, China virus, Commerce Department, coronavirus, COVID 19, globalization, health security, healthcare, India, medical devices, national security, Office of Technology Evaluation, offshoring, pharmaceuticals, supply chains, surgical equipment, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Last week I wrote that no one in American politics, in either party, deserves blame for failing to anticipate the China Virus outbreak (in the sense of being ready for a genuine pandemic), and especially the Trump administration’s flawed response to its spread within the United States (as opposed to its timely decision on January 31 to start curbing inbound travel from overseas – initially from China). 

But there’s one big aspect of coronavirus-related public policy where potentially calamitous and avoidable mistakes have been made, and where identifying responsibility is essential (largely to prevent repetition). That’s the growth of America’s dependence on pharmaceuticals, their active ingredients, and other healthcare-related goods from foreign sources, especially from China.

It should have been obvious long before the virus broke out in Wuhan (at least as far as we know) that health security is national security, and that the blithe approval of trade and related policies that encouraged the offshoring of production in this crucial sector was as dangerous as the offshoring of crucial defense and defense-related (because so many inputs to weapons and platforms aren’t weapons themselves) products. Even louder alarm bells should have sounded once it became clear that a leading offshoring destination was China – a dictatorship that has challenged U.S. national security interests long before the rise of current leader Xi Jinping, and whose role in medical supply chains inevitably created the threat of supply cutoffs (as has recently been threatened in the Chinese government-controlled press).

And indeed American policymakers had all the evidence they needed as early as 2011. That’s when a small office at the Commerce Department called the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a report called – yup – “Reliance on Foreign Sourcing in the Healthcare and Pubic Health (HPH) Sector: Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, and Surgical Equipment.”

For many years, BIS’ Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE) has been issuing reports on sectors of the U.S. defense industry and other portions of the economy critical to the nation’s security and their use of foreign parts, components, materials, and other inputs whose availability shouldn’t be taken for granted. And fortunately, the Office and the various acts of Congress that have defined its mission have long understood that, as suggested above, national security-related industries are by no means restricted to those that turn out products that go bang and boom.

Notably, the study was requested by the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which shows commendable foresight. And the main results make jaw-dropping reading today:

>“There is a significant amount of U.S.-based manufacturing for critical healthcare-related commodities.” At the same time, “There is…a very high degree of foreign sourcing and dependency for components, materials, and finished products.”

>“Exposure to supply disruptions is widespread, but many respondents consider it a cost of doing business in the healthcare industry.”

>As a result, “Only 34 percent of respondents are taking steps to reduce their exposure to foreign sourcing and dependency issues.”

>When it comes to the chemical ingredients for drugs, where heavy China dependency has attracted so much attention today, in 2011, pharmaceutical companies reported “difficulty limiting their exposure to foreign dependencies primarily because most of the APIs [active pharmaceutical ingredients] are produced outside the United States.”

>Medical device producers stated that they were “vulnerable primarily due to their reliance on other countries for electronic parts.” Japan was the main concern, due at least in part to the earthquake that year that disrupted many industries’ supply chains. But China has become an even more important supplier since then.

Sadly, however, the record also demonstrates that once the findings came in, no serious follow-through was undertaken.

OTE surveyed 161 companies – 70 pharmaceutical producers, 75 manufacturers of medical devices and surgical equipment, and 16 companies that turned out both kinds of products. Roughly three fourths of these companies were headquartered in the United States and roughly one-fourth were foreign owned.

All told, these firms produced 868 individual pharmaceuticals and 833 kinds of medical devices or surgical equipment. Of these, in turn, 290 pharmaceuticals and 128 types of devices and equipment were deemed by OTE “critical to effective healthcare services in the United States,” meaning “needed in various emergency scenarios.” The bureau also looked into the chemical ingredients and parts and components comprising these products.

As for the specific information sought, here it is:

“Survey respondents were asked to identify the pharmaceuticals and medical devices/surgical equipment they manufactured, integrated/assembled, and/or sold for use in the United States. For each product area selected, companies were then asked to provide the top three company proprietary products they make and the location of manufacture. Finally, companies identified, to the best of their knowledge, whether they were the sole U.S.-based manufacturer, sole global manufacturer, or not the sole manufacturer of each product.”

Some of the above results in greater detail:

More than 73 percent of the total surveyed companies depended on suppliers located abroad for at least one critical component, manufacturing material, or actual finished good. And the average number of such foreign-sourced goods per company surveyed was 11.4. Seventy-nine percent of pharmaceutical firms surveyed reported themselves in this situation versus 63.7 percent of the device and equipment manufacturers, and the average number of foreign-sourced products was 11.4 for the drug companies versus 9.8 for their device and equipment manufacturers.

Interestingly, even at this point, China loomed pretty large large in the picture at that time – especially for medical devices and surgical equipment. Its entities represented 13.8 percent of the total number of foreign suppliers to U.S.-based producers. For pharmaceutical companies, they accounted for 9.1 percent – less than leader Italy (15.7 percent), India (12.8 percent), and Germany (10.6 percent). Not that this result should be especially comforting, as India – a major global producer of generic drugs – has recently announced to restrict exports because it’s experiencing difficulty getting chemicals from China and (surprise?) wants to make sure it can provide for its own population.

The OTE survey, in other words, found that, in 2011, healthcare products companies operating in the United States relied on a diverse global supply chain. But significant vulnerabilities were reported, too. Principally, for pharmaceuticals, “there was no U.S.-based source for at least 65.5 percent of [total goods] identified by survey respondents.” And for medical devices and surgical equipment, the figure was at least 60.5 percent. More troublingly, in the device and equipment sectors, the greatest dependencies tended to be in complex products.

Moreover, when thinking about the safety of imported healthcare goods, keep in mind BIS’ finding that only 60.3 percent of the companies in total could identify the suppliers of their suppliers.

Nor were significant supply disruptions unknown by healthcare products companies. Thirty percent of these businesses reported experiencing at least one of these events between 2007 and 2010, 40 percent of these came from foreign suppliers, and 17.5 percent came from China – the biggest share for any single country. Both domestic- and foreign-origin disruptions lasted an average of 155 days. Nonetheless, these figures are surely way too low, as only 18.3 percent of responding companies said they tracked foreign supply disruptions.

Even so, the study oddly found that “Only 16.6 percent of companies foresee a risk of supply disruptions from outside of the United States” but that 29 percent “believed their company was vulnerable to serious and/or prolonged supply chain disruptions from events or dependencies outside the United States.” For pharmaceuticals, the top concern again was lack of API availability domestically.”

OTE made several policy recommendations to strengthen America’s health security. For example, various major relevant federal agencies should “further examine [the] survey data to prioritize the foreign sourcing and dependencies that could have the greatest impact on the healthcare supply chain in an emergency situation.”

In addition, these agencies, “in coordination with DHS and the Department of Commerce, should assess whether the use of Defense Production Act authorities, such as the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS), could provide the ability to rapidly expand or surge capacity of U.S.-based pharmaceutical and medical device/surgical equipment facilities to meet demand in an emergency situation.” As made clear, however, by the continued sky-high levels of the healthcare industry’s China and other foreign dependencies, the problem was promptly ignored.  

Such measures, along with many others in the trade, tax, and regulatory fields will no doubt be crucial to rebuilding the kind of domestic healthcare industry so many Americans and even their leaders finally recognize is essential. But if the nation really is seriously behind the idea that health security is national security, it’s going to need updated detailed information on foreign dependencies. In other words, time to put the OTE to work again.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How Big a China Virus Hit?

Tags

China virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Economic Policy Institute, Employment, employment multiplier, Jobs, output, output multiplier, production, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The short answer to the headline’s question? “Really big.” Which is kind of obvious. So today I thought I’d present some information on techniques economists use to come up with a somewhat more specific idea.

First let’s look at jobs – because jobs obviously affect people and their ability to provide for themselves. Economists taking a “put people first” approach would start by looking at the official federal government data on how many Americans are employed by those parts of the economy that clearly will be most seriously affected. Those numbers look like this as of last month’s preliminary figures, in millions of employees:

retail trade:                                                            15.659           1.22

educational services:                                               3.838           1.94

  (includes public & private institutions)

leisure & hospitality:                                            16.873

arts, entertainment, & recreation:                           2.494          3.79

  performing arts & spectator sports:                     0.516

  spectator sports*:                                                 0.146

accommodation & food services:                        14.379          1.61

  accommodation:                                                  2.092

  restaurants & other eating places:                     11.103

*January figure

The indented categories are industries of special interest that are sub-sectors of the larger categories below which they appear. And if you add up the major categories, you come up with 54.193 million workers – nearly 42 percent of the total U.S. private sector workforce.

Sharp-eyed readers will notice a number to the right of the worker figures – that number shows what’s called the employment multiplier for the sector in question. Simply put, it means how many jobs in other parts of the economy the maintenance, creation, or loss of a single job in the first sector affects. In other words, every job in American retail companies and stores affects 1.22 jobs elsewhere (e.g., from suppliers that furnish that industry with the inputs it needs to function, and from the purchases its own workers make from other industries).

Employment multipliers aren’t easy to find – these come from a Washington, D.C. think tank called the Economic Policy Institute, and don’t cover all the initially affected sectors. But from these data alone, it’s obvious that the total number of U.S. jobs that could be lost, or see a cutback in hours, is much greater than the employment damage done, for example, by the simple closing of a single restaurant or sports stadium.

Most economists would also look at how much output the most seriously affected industries contribute to the gross domestic product (GDP – the total sum of all the goods and services Americans turn out during a given time period). GDP and output matter, of course, because if businesses aren’t producing goods and services, they won’t need employees. Here how they look, according to a measure called “value-added” – which seeks to eliminate various forms of double-counting that result when trying to gauge production in sectors that make final products, and sectors that make their parts, components, materials, ingredients, and other inputs. Also important – these figures are not adjusted for inflation.

Percent of total U.S. value-added

retail trade:                                                            5.50           0.66

healthcare services & social assistance:               7.60

educational services:                                            1.20           0.72

performance arts, spectator sports, museums &

  related activities:                                               0.70            0.81

accommodation & food services:                       3.10

  accommodation:                                               0.80

  food services:                                                   2.30

Again, the sub-categories are indented. Here the total percent figure is much smaller than the employment figure. But at 21.20 percent, it’s not bupkis, either.

And as with employment, don’t forget those multipliers (also presented to the right)! Here, the readily available data is scantier, and those I use are from 2012. But clearly the indirect output (and growth) impact will be non-trivial. (These output multipliers come from the Manufacturing Institute of the National Association of Manufacturers.)

Even if the China Virus situation wasn’t still evolving – and possibly dramatically, no one should take these numbers to the bank. Especially important is remembering that none of them take into account the danger that all these jobs and output and income and related business revenue losses bring about the kind of financial system seize-up seen during the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Moreover, although business and entire industry shutdowns will be extensive in the above and other sectors, they won’t be total, or (usually) anywhere close. And the damage will not last forever, or anywhere close.

All the same, we’re talking major drops in employment, incomes, and production – which is exactly why the economic response from Washington needs to focus on getting and guaranteeing money and credit where it’s needed pronto.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Score Another Victory for Trump’s Tariffs – on Metals

Tags

aluminum, Bob Tita, China, metals, overcapacity, steel, tariffs, The Wall Street Journal, Trump, World Steel Association, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Wall Street Journal manufacturing reporter Bob Tita, who knows his stuff, more than earned his paycheck with a new story on how all the coronavirus-related disruption to the global economy is worsening a chronic global glut of key metals – especially steel – that’s likely to keep ballooning thanks to continued over-production from glutter-in-chief China.

Especially alarming seems to be this Tita finding: As the PRC’s economy and manufacturing sector have slowed markedly due to the outbreak, and reduced demand for metals,

“many of the country’s steel mills and aluminum smelters have continued to operate because stopping and starting equipment handling molten metal is expensive and risky. Millions of tons of steel and aluminum produced during what is now the worst manufacturing slump on record in China have created a surplus of metal that will take months to shrink, even if the epidemic is contained and demand recovers later this year in China and beyond.

“As a result, the global stockpile of steel and aluminum threatens to push down prices and put new pressure on producers in the U.S., Western Europe and elsewhere. Many of those companies were already struggling to earn a profit on steel and aluminum because of lower prices and weakening demand from manufacturers.”

Indeed, he quotes a U.S. scrap steel broker as fearing that “We could see China swamp the entire world with steel.”

Yet Tita – and the broker – seem to be missing something crucial about the steel glut’s recent past, present, and likely future: The situation then, now, and going forward would’ve been much worse if not for the global nature of President Trump’s steel tariffs. And the latest global output data from the World Steel Association have just proven this point yet again.

When first imposed, in March, 2018, the levies were blasted as catastrophic mistakes by globalist and free trade conventional wisdom-mongers in politics, the Mainstream Media, big metals-using industries, and their hired guns in the think tank world. Yes, they acknowledged, China has been guilty of dumping its bloated steel (and aluminum) output overseas at artificially low prices, thereby exporting not only metals but a metals recession and unemployment around the world. But the United States was an exception, because of steel tariffs already imposed under the Obama administration.

The new U.S. duties were hitting America’s trade partners indiscriminately, including supposedly loyal allies in Europe and East Asia (along with Mexico and Canada). What could be dumber or more short-sighted – especially since these countries had joined with the United States to start putting multilateral pressure on China to cease and desist?

But as RealityChek regulars know, none of these complaints held even a drop of water. For the rest of the world was likely to continue responding to the metals flood from China the way it always had – by ramping up their own exports to the United States, and/or putting the Chinese metals inundating their own markets into new boxes with their own labels and sending them state-side – a practice known as transshipping (and involves committing customs fraud).

Moreover, after achieving exactly nothing since it was created in September, 2016, the multilateral steel talks seem doomed because China has decided it’s had it even with pretending to be interested in cutting its capacity meaningfully.

Yet thanks to the global scope of the Trump tariffs, the U.S. economy is no longer serving as the world’s steel buyer of last resort – and manufacturing punching bag. I first documented their effectiveness in this May, 2019 op-ed. And I’m pleased to report that as of January, 2020, the World Steel Association’s figures show that they’re still working exactly as intended.

The Association tracks output for 64 countries that comprise the vast bulk of global production. And its new figures show that on a January-January basis, China’s steel production rose in tonnage terms by 7.2 percent. That’s considerably faster than world production growth of 2.1 percent.

But the American industry expanded output by more than the global industry, too – by 2.5 percent. And much of this relative improvement stemmed from the poor production performances of other regions and countries that traditionally viewed the United States as the world’s big steel dumping ground. For example, during this year-long stretch, steel tonnage production in Japan rose by only 1.3 percent. For South Korea and Taiwan, it actually fell – by eight percent and 14.6 percent, respectively. And overall European Union production sank by twelve percent.

This success contrasts sharply with the pre-tariffs situation, when the United States was clearly the world’s biggest steel production loser as the result of gluts not only in China but created by many other economies.  

At the same time, the battle to safeguard American domestic metals producers hasn’t been won once and for all. As Tita notes, although “Tariffs have made many types of metal made in China uncompetitive in the U.S.,” China’s still “large steel-and-aluminum output drives up supply and weighs on prices around the world. Excess metal in China could create more competition for U.S. steel exports or enter the U.S. indirectly as imports from Canada and Mexico” – where the American levies have been lifted in connection with the signing of the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA), the follow-on to the North American Free Trade agreement (NAFTA).

But the new U.S. and global production numbers also show indisputably that Mr. Trump was right and his critics wrong about his sweeping approach to the metals tariffs. Just don’t expect any of the critics to admit it.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Solid Manufacturing Jobs and Trade Numbers Despite Boeing’s Woes

Tags

Boeing, China, exports, imports, Jobs, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, manufacturing trade deficit, Phase One, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, {What's Left of) Our Economy

You say U.S. manufacturing jobs keep growing too slowly? You say manufacturing’s trade deficit remains too high, and its exports inadequate? According to two big new government reports on the state of the American economy this morning, if you do, you should also be saying (with beaucoup de snark) “Thanks, Boeing!”

For it keeps getting clearer that the aerospace giant’s safety woes and resulting production halt of its (once) popular 737 Max model are sandbagging both measures of manufacturing’s performance – and not trivially. Don’t forget the silver lining, however.  Despite the Boeing effect, domestic industry has been holding up encouragingly well. 

The evidence is clearest from the trade figures. As reported last month in RealityChek, if not for a big deterioration in the civilian aircraft trade balance (until recently the sector of the entire economy with the biggest trade surplus), the full-year 2019 manufacturing trade shortfall would barely have grown over the 2018 level. And since industry itself increased output last year in pre-inflation terms, (at least through the latest – third quarter – data available), that represented a heartening sign that domestic manufacturing was becoming more self-reliant.

In January, the manufacturing shortfall actually fell month-to-month (by 0.38 percent, from $82.24 billion to $81.93 billion, and $850 million in absolute terms). The mix wasn’t exactly ideal: Imports were down 3.11 percent, but the value of exports (which are much smaller) fell by 5.58 percent.

But the civilian aircraft trade surplus plunged 44.43 percent – from $3.06 billion to $1.70 billion. So in January, had the sector simply equaled its December trade performance, the January manufacturing deficit would have been not $81.93 billion but $80.57 billion – the lowest total since last March’s $76.96 billion, and a monthly drop of 2.03 percent, not 0.38 percent. Further, manufacturing exports would have been $87.93 billion rather than $86.25 billion – or down only 3.74 percent, not 5.58 percent.

The picture is muddier for manufacturing employment because the data for civilian aircraft and their parts is reported one month after most other industry-by-industry jobs statistics. Another complication: The new jobs report overall goes up to February.

More puzzling still: Although latest statistics for the Boeing-related categories are January, they’re little changed from the December totals even though the 737 Max production suspension was announced in the middle of that month.

But it’s still legit to wonder whether they would’ve been better without the Boeing crisis. And how much better? Moreover, the vast aircraft supply chain encompasses dozens of manufacturing sectors beyond the engines and parts themselves. After all, these systems are in turn made of any number of components and materials. Boeing’s difficulties, therefore, could have been holding back manufacturing job growth broadly speaking for months.

Even so, industry as a whole added 15,000 jobs sequentially in February – it’s best such performance (except for a November increase that was aided by the end of the General Motors strike) since January, 2019’s 20,000.

And let’s not forget – industry achieved this employment gain even though the “Phase One” trade deal with China has left stiff U.S. tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of imported goods from China, as well as on much foreign steel and aluminum.

No doubt the coronavirus outbreak could send the manufacturing performance arrows pointing down again, or leveling off, in the next few months. But the new jobs and trade data make clear that despite an external (Boeing) shock that has nothing to do with President Trump’s trade wars, and despite the trade curbs he has enacted, domestic manufacturing has been on the rebound lately, and showed impressive resilience that bodes well for its future – and the entire economy’s.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Productivity Growth Keeps Lagging Historically, but has Bumped Under Trump

Tags

Barack Obama, election 2020, labor productivity, manufacturing, multifactor productivity, non-farm business, productivity, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Sure, they’re lagging indicators, and don’t tell us much, if anything, about whatever coronavirus effect the American economy might face. Still, today’s new U.S. government data on labor productivity both say something about where the economy has been until recently before pandemic fears hit, and provide a noteworthy point of comparison between the record of President Trump and his White House predecessor, Barack Obama. And although the news for the economy isn’t good at all (especially for manufacturing), the findings should cheer Mr. Trump and his supporters.

The figures, from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), cover labor productivity – a gauge of output of a good or service per each hour a worker has been on the job trying to create it. It’s the narrower of the two productivity measures calculated by BLS (the other, multifactor productivity, reports on output as a function of many more inputs, like capital and technology), but it’s released on a timelier basis. And the latest numbers not only bring the story up to the fourth quarter of last year (preliminarily). They also incorporate revisions – some of which go back to 1947!

As a result, it’s now possible to take a new look at the nation’s productivity performance during the last three economic recoveries – the most economically valid, apples-to-apples way of comparing trends over significant time spans.

And here’s where the news isn’t good, as will be made clear from the following two tables. The first shows the cumulative productivity changes during those last three expansions before these latest revisions:

                                                                        Non-farm business    Manufacturing

1990s expansion (2Q 1991-1Q 2001):              +23.74 percent      +45.86 percent

bubble expansion (4Q 2001-4Q 2007):             +16.59 percent      +30.23 percent

current expansion (2Q 09 thru final 3Q 19):     +12.74 percent        +9.42 percent

The second shows the same developments with the revisions.

                                                                         Non-farm business    Manufacturing

1990s expansion (2Q 1991-1Q 2001):              +23.75 percent        +44.68 percent

bubble expansion (4Q 2001-4Q 2007):             +16.58 percent        +30.92 percent

current expansion (2Q 09 thru final 3Q 19):     +12.74 percent          +6.32 percent

current expansion (2Q 09 thru prelim 4Q 19):  +13.44 percent          +6.11 percent

The big takeaway is that although the revisions leave the picture for both non-farm businesses (BLS’ main definition of the American economic universe) and manufacturing unchanged in terms of a long and substantial productivity slowdown, they downgrade manufacturing’s performance during the current recovery substantially. In fact, industry’s labor productivity growth is now reported to be about a third slower than previously thought.

Since it’s a presidential campaign year, I thought a Trump-Obama comparison would be appropriate, and here’s where the good news for Trump World, at the very least, comes in.

                                                                   Non-farm business          Manufacturing

last 12 Obama quarters                                 +3.31 percent                -2.27 percent

first 12 Trump quarters                                 +4.17 percent                -0.05 percent

The time frames used make sense because they represent identical numbers of quarters for each President that are also the closest to each other in the current (expansionary) business/economic cycle. The productivity performance under Mr. Trump hasn’t been gangbusters historically speaking for either sector of the economy. But it’s clearly been better than that registered during the most comparable Obama period.

Since most serious students of the economy agree that there’s lots of room for improvement in measuring productivity growth (especially for the services sectors), it would be quite the stretch for Mr. Trump to claim credit for these favorable numbers. Yet when have such substantive considerations ever stopped politicians from pretending they wield such power – for economic good or ill? So unless the productivity arrows start moving down markedly, Americans might finally hear something from the President about productivity before too long.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Another Trump Trade Bombshell May be Coming Up

Because Trump Derangement Syndrome will likely prove tougher to cure than the coronavirus, many critics still insist that the President hasn’t worked hard enough to transform America’s foreign trade policy from an exercise in offshoring and economic giveaways into an engine of domestic growth and employment.

These critics badly need to check out a recent Bloomberg News story about Mr. Trump’s plans for the World Trade Organization (WTO), the international body legally authorized by most of the world’s economies to facilitate the negotiation of global trade rules and agreements, and arbitrate disputes. According to reporters Bryce Baschuk and Jenny Leonard, the President is considering a plan that in two bold steps would wipe out many of the barriers preventing U.S.-based producers and their employees from competing with foreign rivals on substantially more equal terms.

These barriers are called bound tariffs, and represent the ceilings that WTO members have agreed to via many rounds of negotiations to place on their duties on imports. What’s most important to know about these tariffs is that (a) they can vary tremendously by product and (b) they can also vary tremendously by country.

That is, WTO members are under no obligation at all to tariff any competitor country’s goods or services at the same rate imposed by that competitor. They’re simply required to promise to apply the same levies on any given product or service wherever they come from, and to keep them at or lower than the maximum rates they’ve agreed.

For example, if the United States has agreed to a bound tariff of five percent on widgets, it can’t impose higher widget duties on any countries no matter what widget tariff rates its own companies might face abroad, and it must impose the same rate to widgets from all countries.In other words, it’s strictly verboten to go beyond that bound tariff rate if Washington believes U.S. widget makers face inequitable foreign competition. In that case, American policymakers would only have any retaliatory option at all if its own current widget tariff levels (called applied rates) were below the bound level (a decision that could be justified by a wide variety of economic or political considerations). And that option would only entail raising the current tariff (called the applied rate) to the bound rate. No higher.

(Importantly, there are certain circumstances in which countries are allowed to deviate from this uniform global tariff rate on individual products and services – i.e., from a principle known as “non-discrimination.” One of the most significant entails trade agreements with each other, but not with the rest of the WTO’s membership. At the same time, thee signatories are not permitted to assess tariffs on non-signatory countries higher than their bound rates. They can only assess each other lower tariffs.)

So if the U.S. government is unhappy because its own applied widget tariffs are only three percent, but another country’s are 20 percent (don’t laugh – such rates are anything but uncommon, as shown in the little map below, in which the darker the color of a country, the higher its bound rates), Washington’s toughest unilateral legal option if that country raises its widget tariffs to its higher bound rate (say, 30 or 40 percent – also hardly unknown , as the map make clear) would be to increase its own levy to the much lower bound rate (only five percent) to which it’s already agreed.

And as the Trump administration repeatedly has complained, this is exactly the situation that its predecessors have put the United States in for decades. By the most commonly used measure (an average weighted to reflect the magnitude of each product’s trade flows), U.S. bound tariffs are 1.6 percent – one of the world’s lowest rates. And about half of all industrial goods (which represent nearly 70 percent of total U.S. imports), enter the country completely duty-free.

The reaction of pre-Trump administrations whenever any supposedly neanderthal protectionist types would bring this up? Condescending shoulder-shrugging accompanied by various self-righteous bloviations about “international law,” “the rules-based global order,” “enlightened self-interest” – even “free trade.”

According to the Bloomberg article, that may change very soon. The Trump administration has decided that it’s going to start negotiating in the WTO for more equitable tariff arrangements – without any expectations of reaching an acceptable agreement. But when the talks break down, Washington won’t meekly accept failure. It would go ahead and impose its own higher tariffs unilaterally.

For the record, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office has officially denied that it’s even considering such plans. But as Joe Biden might say, “Come on, man!” Where do you think Bloomberg got this idea? It’s clearly a leak designed as what Washington for decades has called a trial balloon.

Now it’s true that this step wouldn’t deal expressly with non-tariff barriers around the world – which have grown more important than tariffs, and where the deck is stacked at least as inexcusably against American producers as it is with tariffs. At the same time, U.S. tariffs that are high enough would make a big difference on this score.

But even if they didn’t, closing the tariff gap would be an undeniably disruptive change in U.S. trade policy. And unless you view the Bloomberg piece as total hooey – and ignore a thoroughly game-changing China trade deal that leaves in place U.S. tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of prospective Chinese exports to the United States, and creates a dispute-resolution system dramatically favoring the  United States – you have every right to disagree with the direction of Mr. Trump’s policy changes. But you have no right to dismiss them as trivial or cosmetic.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: What Washington Doesn’t Know About U.S. China Drug Dependence Can Literally Kill Us

Tags

active pharmaceutical ingredients, antibiotics, chemicals, China, China virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, generic drugs, globalization, Hastings Center, Katherine Eban, medicines, pharmaceuticals, public health, Rosemary Gibson, supply chain, U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s bad enough, as widely reported, that as the coronavirus has begun spreading rapidly beyond China, the United States finds itself reliant on the People’s Republic for a wide variety of medicines and, just as important, for the chemical building blocks of those medicines. It’s at least as bad, and much less widely reported, that the U.S. government still doesn’t know the exact extent of this dependence, and still uses an inspection system for checking the safety of these Chinese inputs that looks as leaky as the proverbial sieve.

Even worse, as I see it, these shortcomings have been way out in the open since at least last July, when the official U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission held a hearing on the matter.

Anyone with any doubts about how dangerous this dependency on China has become should check out the testimony of Rosemary Gibson of The Hastings Center, one of the world’s leading research institutes focusing on healthcare and healthcare and broader scientific ethics issues. Gibson has been investigating this situation for years, months before the corona virus outbreak, made the following claims at the Commission session to justify her conclusion that “The nation’s health security is in jeopardy”:

>”The U.S. can no longer make penicillin. The last U.S. penicillin fermentation plant closed in 2004. Industry data reveal that Chinese companies formed a cartel, colluded to sell product on the global market at below market price, and drove all U.S. European, and Indian producers out of business. Once they gained dominant global market share, prices increased.”

>”The U.S. can no longer make generic antibiotics. Because the U.S. has allowed the industrial base to wither, the U.S. cannot produce generic antibiotics for children’s ear infections, strep throat, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, sexually-transmitted diseases, Lyme disease, superbugs and other infections that are threats to human life. We cannot make the generic antibiotics for anthrax exposure. After the anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in 2001, the U.S. government turned to a European company to buy 20 million doses of the recommended treatment for anthrax exposure, doxycycline. That company had to buy the chemical starting material from China. What if China were the anthrax attacker?”

>”Beyond antibiotics, the U.S. industrial base for generic drug manufacturing is on the brink of collapse. Generic drugs are 90 percent of the medicines Americans take. Examples of generic drugs made in China by domestic companies and sold in the United States include: antibiotics, anti-depressants, birth control pills, chemotherapy for cancer treatment for children and adults, medicine for Alzheimer’s, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, Parkinson’s, and epilepsy, to name a few. If past performance is indicative of future performance, China’s generic drug companies will engage in cartel formation and predatory pricing, and drive out U.S. and other western generic companies.”

>[T]he pharmaceutical and chemical industry’s successful requests to the U.S. Trade Representative not to impose tariffs on medicinal products made in China corroborate that much of the US industrial base, and our self-sufficiency in manufacturing products essential for life, has collapsed.”

And Gibson categorically stated that “The FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] cannot fix the underlying cause of the proliferation of contaminated and potentially lethal medicines in the legal supply of America’s medicines.”

One reason for the FDA’s ineffectiveness is clearly a lack of good data. Not that the challenge of conducting adequate inspections is easy. Jennifer Bouey of the RAND Corporation, another leading think tank, told that Commission that on top of China’s foreign affiliated plants, “Researchers estimate there are 5,300 to 7,000 local manufacturers, each with a small share of the Chinese domestic market.”

Mark Abdoo of the FDA itself acknowledged to the Commission that because of “remaining gaps” in its data, the agency lacks “visibility of all Chinese manufacturers that produce drugs or active pharmaceutical ingredients of drugs that are ultimately shipped to the United States.”

Abdoo added that on top of drug building blocks (called “active pharmaceutical ingredients,” or APIs) that the FDA knows come into the U.S. market from China, such China-produced ingredients “also come to the U.S. as part of finished drug products manufactured in other countries, for example, India. Therefore, the percentage of APIs produced by China for the United States marketplace is likely underrepresented by our numbers as China is a major supplier of APIs for other countries.”

It’s worth mentioning at this point that relying on the main federal government system for slicing and dicing the U.S. economy – the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) – can produce a highly misleading picture of American imports of drugs and their chemical ingredients from China.

For example, according to the NAICS data, although American purchases of finished drugs and their ingredients are up astronomically in absolute terms over the last 20 years, they still account for only 1.34 percent of such imports from the world as a whole. Similar trends have unfolded in “non-diagnostic biological products,” which are defined as “vaccines, toxoids, blood fractions, and culture media of plant or animal origin.” Despite soaring literally 80-fold from 1999 to 2019, imports of these goods equal only 0.34 percent of all U.S. imports.

But separate testimony to the Commission by journalist Katherine Eban, drawing on her recent probe of the foreign factories that supply so much of the U.S. drug market, identified numerous flaws in inspection procedures and broader policies that are much more easily corrected – and indeed, should have never been allowed to emerge in the first place. For example:

>”Most of the FDA’s investigators who are sent to China do not speak the language. They can’t read the manufacturing records. The FDA does not always provide independent translators. Instead, the companies provide translators who, more often than not, are company salesmen. Sometimes, FDA investigators simply give plants a pass, deeming them to be No Action Indicated because they have no way to tell otherwise. The investigators also can’t read street signs, which make them vulnerable to wild manipulations. Companies steer them to phony ‘show’ plants, where everything looks compliant, but the companies aren’t manufacturing there. Sometimes a group of companies pool their resources and invest in the same “show” factory, so that different FDA inspectors return to the same plant at different times, each one thinking they are inspecting a different facility.”

>”In the United States, in order to inspect drug plants, FDA investigators simply show up unannounced and stay as long as is needed. But for overseas inspections—due to the complex logistics of getting visas and ensuring access to the plant – the FDA has chosen to announce its inspections in advance. Overseas drug plants typically ‘invite’ the FDA to inspect and the agency accepts. Plant officials serve as hosts to the visiting FDA investigators, who become their guests. It is not unusual for manufacturing plants to arrange local travel for FDA investigators. This system has allowed manufacturing plants to ‘stage’ inspections, as one FDA investigator put it, and conceal evidence of data fabrication.”

>”According to the FDA’s own data, which I obtained, from 2013 to 2018, out of 864 inspections in China that FDA investigators recommended as Official Action Indicated, FDA officials downgraded 78 of those [that is recommended a milder response from Washington]. By contrast, in the same time period, out of 11,642 inspections that FDA investigators conducted in the U.S. and recommended as Official Action Indicated, only one inspection was downgraded in that time. This reflects the FDA’s willingness to give foreign plants, particularly in China, an opportunity to reform without sanctions.”

>The agency appears to discourage talented staff to deploy in China and elsewhere abroad because of “a lack of clear career progression and promotion opportunities. Right now, those who serve overseas often return to the FDA’s U.S. headquarters without a guaranteed job, and sometimes have to accept demotions.”

Alert readers will note that although most of the problems mentioned here are rooted in pre-Trump policies and practices, they’ve continued into the Trump era. All Americans should demand that the coronavirus outbreak be regarded by Washington as the most urgent possible wake-up call.

Incidentally, Rosemary Gibson’s latest findings are contained in her recent book, China Rx.  Katherine Eban’s are available in her recent book, Bottle of Lies.