(What’s Left of) Our Economy: What the Mini-Deal Says About Trump’s China Policy

Tags

agriculture, business investment, censorship, China, decoupling, democracy, Democrats, election 2020, Elizabeth Warren, Hong Kong, Hong Kong protests, human rights, impeachment, Populism, Republicans, tariffs, Trade, trade talks, trade war, Trump, Uighurs, Ukraine, Ukraine Scandal, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The “Phase One” min-deal reached by the United States and China tamping down bilateral trade tensions for the moment, speaks volumes about the three major forces that are now driving President Trump’s China policy, and that will keep shaping it through the next U.S. election – though not always in consistent ways. They are:

>the President’s evident belief that his reelection hopes are being threatened mainly by revived impeachment threats but also by an economic slowdown that has unmistakably been influenced by the so-called trade war with China;

>his consequently increased need for political support from the establishment Republicans so numerous in Congress who have never boarded the Trump Tariff Train and who are worried about their own reelection chances next year; and

>Mr. Trump’s consistent (though generally unstated) belief that no matter how the formal trade talks proceed, America’s national security as well as economic interests require the U.S. economy to continue steadily decoupling from China’s.

The strength of the impeachment drive faced by the president is now indisputable. Some polls are even showing growing Republican support for not only impeachment by the House but removal by the Senate. Moreover, this political challenge comes at a time when the President’s strongest suit by far (at least according to polls) – his economic policy record – is looking somewhat weaker.

Few signs point to a recession breaking out by Election Day, much less during the preceding weeks or months. But growth has been slowing to levels that Mr. Trump himself has deemed unacceptable – in no small measure because they were the rates that prevailed for most of the Obama administration.

The tariff-heavy Trump trade policies hardly deserve all the blame. (See, e.g., this recent post.) But the failure of business investment to stay elevated following passage of major tax cuts for business is especially telling. It buttresses claims that both the President’s various sets of tariffs and the inconsistency with which they’ve been both threatened and applied have inhibited companies from approving big new expenditures on new factories and other facilities.

As a result, nothing that can reasonably be expected from Washington (in other words, ruling out a big infrastructure spending bill) is likelier to boost the economy more than a nerve-calming trade truce with China mainly featuring some Chinese market opening or re-opening (especially for agricultural products) in return for some U.S. tariff cuts, promises to refrain from new levies, or some some combination of such moves. At the least, such an agreement would in theory help growth maintain the momentum it has remaining.

A mini-deal along these lines would also please the Senate Republicans who might ultimately judge the President’s fate, and who generally have lagged far behind the GOP base in turning against pre-Trump China and broader trade policies. Moreover, as I’ve written, impeachment politics have greatly magnified their sway over Mr. Trump before. Despite his sky-high popularity with Republican voters, the President was heavily dependent on their political backing until this spring in order to neutralize any impeachment chances while his Russia ties were being investigated. That’s surely why his early policy initiatives were dominated by traditional Republican priorities, like tax cuts and repeal of former President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, rather than by populist priorities like an infrastructure bill and the prompt imposition to tariffs.

Once the Special Counsel and other investigations flopped for various reasons, Mr. Trump had a much freer hand. But because of the emergence of “UkraineGate,” for now, those days are over. Probes growing out of those events are certain to last for months. Therefore, continued, much less higher, tariffs on China that could further drag on the economy and further frustrate the rural constituencies so crucial to the President and many other Republicans seem out of the question.

The President is so hamstrung that he’s been unable to marshal greater public support for staying the tariff course even though China is antagonizing American public opinion with its harsh suppression of the Hong Kong protests and the Muslim Uighur minority, and with its heavy handed efforts to extend its censorship practices to the National Basketball Association and other U.S. businesses. And don’t forget: These developments have placed China in a much weaker position, too.  

One reason that the President hasn’t been able to capitalize could well be his reluctance to declare publicly the functional equivalent of economic war, or his intent to decouple – presumably because any such statements would prompt the Chinese to crack down even further on American companies even doing business in the PRC that have nothing to do with job and production offshoring aimed at serving the U.S. market from super-cheap and highly subsidized Chinese facilities, as opposed to serving Chinese customers. And that reasoning has been entirely understandable.

Much less understandable – the President’s insistence that a trade war with China would be easy to win and inflict no economic harm on Americans, rather than choosing to challenge his compatriots to endure some sacrifices in order to beat back a mortal threat to their national security as well as prosperity. No wonder public support for so-called hard-line policies remotely strong enough to offset the opposition and reservations of the Congressional Republicans and most Democratic politicians is nowhere to be seen.

And don’t doubt that the Chinese fully understand. Whatever problems they initially experienced in figuring Mr. Trump out, they surely have concluded that they’re best advised to play the waiting game on the broader and deeper so-called structural issues dividing the two countries (e.g., intellectual property theft, technology extortion, massive subsidies) until the President is replaced by a Democrat who’s much easier to deal with.

Indeed, the evidence for this conclusion is abundant. China issues have played a small role in the Democratic primary campaign so far – even when it comes to long-time critics of pre-Trump trade policies like Democratic Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. One likely explanation: In recent years, Democratic voters and leaners have markedly flipped on those pre-Trump approaches, from deep dislike to general approval. This shift in public opinion (matched in part by a trade flip in the other direction among Republicans and leaners) may also warrant some Chinese confidence that even a President Warren might prove a more acceptable interlocutor than Mr. Trump.

Nonetheless, the formal talks are not the only track on which the Trump administration’s China trade policies are running. And the other track – featuring unilateral U.S. moves to restrict Chinese involvement in the American economy, and thereby foster decoupling – is much less controversial than the trade talks and especially the tariffs and tariff threats clearly required to spur any meaningful progress.

Highly revealing on this score (in terms of the importance attached in Washington to decoupling): Even as a high level Chinese delegation was jetting to Washington, the President approved actions against Chinese tech companies and Chinese officials that were justified by human rights concerns, but that in the first case clearly advanced decoupling. Just as revealing (in terms of possible Chinese acceptance of a more skeptical new bipartisan U.S. consensus on China policy): Despite the provocative timing, the Chinese didn’t turn around and head back home once they heard the announcement.

Reinforcing the new American consensus on decoupling has unmistakably been the growing realization by the U.S. corporate sector that its heavy bets on China have dangerously increased its vulnerability not only to the whims of American politics, but to a Chinese regime that’s turned out to be much less hospitable than expected. As a result, “Phase One” is not only a suspiciously convenient-looking term being used by the President to describe his new deal. It also looks suitable for describing where his administration’s overall China policy stands right now.     

Advertisements

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Boeing Drag on US Manufacturing Unrelated to Trump’s Trade War

Tags

737 Max, aerospace, aviation, Boeing, exports, manufacturing, manufacturing recession, safety, tariffs, Trade, trade wars, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Ever since Boeing ran into safety problems that early this year resulting in the widespread grounding of one of its most successful airliners, authoritative (as opposed to anecdotal) signs have been elusive that the aerospace giant’s woes have been contributing to the slowdown being experienced by domestic manufacturing. This matter matters because a sizable Boeing Factor would rebut claims that President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies deserve nearly all the blame for industry’s recent troubles.

Boeing’s commercial jets, after all, haven’t been subjected to any retaliatory duties from tariff-ed foreign economies – largely because the company is half of a practical duopoly (along with Europe’s Airbus) in large passenger aircraft production. As a result, no countries (including China) want to be left with a single supplier. (Possible European responses to American levies on Airbus products authorized by a U.S. win at the World Trade Organization in a trade dispute long predating Mr. Trump’s inauguration could change that situation.)

Moreover, Boeing uses enormous amounts of manufactured intermediates to assemble its planes (which also include military aircraft), and especially durable goods ranging from fabricated metals products to machine tools. So hard times for Boeing will clearly mean hard times for all these suppliers if they haven’t already.

Last Thursday, however, a Boeing Factor finally became clear in official U.S. economic data – specifically in the monthly trade report (which contained figures through August). These statistics reveal that U.S. exports of civilian aircraft began falling sharply on a year-to-date basis beginning in May – just two months after national aviation authorities and airlines around the world began grounding the 737 Max 8 model or banning it from their airspaces.

Skeptics could still contend that a tariff-induced slump in global economic activity has reduced demand for Boeing’s jets, but the trade data also show significant strengthening of civilian aircraft imports, meaning that, at least in the United States, demand remains healthy.

The most important comparison entails the April-through-August results for civil aircraft exports and imports over the last few years. These ensure the best apples-to-apples findings over respectable periods of time.

According to the trade statistics, the U.S. civil aircraft industry dominated by Boeing hasn’t been killing it recently. From April-through-August, 2017 to April-through-August, 2018, its exports declined by 13.94 percent. And then between the same 2018-19 stretch, the rate of deterioration sped up markedly – to 24.51 percent.

Meanwhile, imports of civil aircraft performed a u-turn. From April-through-August 2017 to April-through-August, 2018, they fell by 7.95 percent. But then between the same 2018-19 period, they actually rose – and by a strong 18.37 percent.

Also pointing to a Boeing/civil aircraft-specific problem – the major difference between civil aircraft’s trade performance in recent years and that of domestic manufacturing as a whole. Between the April-through-August 2017 and 2018 periods, while civil aircraft exports were dropping, overall manufacturing exports rose by 6.76 percent. Between the following April-through-August periods, both kinds of exports decreased, but overall manufacturing exports were down only 3.44 percent versus aircraft’s 24.51 percent. And while civilian aircraft imports were surging, overall manufacturing imports edged up only 0.60 percent.

Could this great recent disparity between civil aircraft’s trade performance and overall manufacturing’s trade performance caused the manufacturing slowdown all by itself? Probably not. Current figures aren’t available for civil aircraft as such, much less for aircraft-specific supply chain output. But a 2016 study from the Federal Aviation Administration reported that in 2014, civilian aircraft and parts manufacturing totaled a little more than $100 billion (in 2012 dollars), and that inputs from the supply chain brought the figure up to just under $258 billion.

Since the Commerce Department pegged total American manufacturing output that year at just under $6 trillion (in those same 2012 dollars), civil aircraft production would have represented 4.27 percent of domestic industry’s total. It’s true that that share isn’t overwhelming. But given that the Federal Reserve’s (inflation-adjusted) manufacturing data show that the sector’s after-inflation output has edged down from only +0.90 percent to +0.89 percent between the April-through-August 2018 and 2019 stretches, civil aircraft’s seriously worsening trade situation may bear noteworthy responsibility. And it certainly could be behind a comparable share of the slight (just 0.36 percent) real output decline over the past year that represents manufacturing’s latest technical recession.

A big complication could still put the spotlight back on the trade wars: Although safety problems have plainly hurt Boeing orders and production, and therefore new business throughout its supply chain, civil aircraft production and sales both feature long time lags between orders and deliveries. Indeed, the company says that its backlog is still considerable – and growing.

Nonetheless, it’s also true that the company’s progress toward regaining its reputation has lagged far behind its initial predictions, and new problems keep emerging with the 737s and other planes . In addition, a leading aerospace industry consultancy reported in August that Boeing-related concerns were depressing civil aircraft production globally. And within Boeing, the damage hasn’t been confined to 737 Max production. The safety crisis is affecting output of other airliners, too.

Moreover, other non-trade-related problems obviously have been weighing lately on U.S.-based manufacturing, too – notably the confusion in Europe created by the ongoing Brexit mess and the long-time abject failures of the European Union and Japan to generate respectable growth. For now, there’s little evidence that Mr. Trump’s trade policies have been a net plus for domestic industry (although the counter-factual needs to be mulled, too – i.e., how would manufacturing be faring under a pre-Trump policy regime?). But the same, at very best, can be said for the Boeing Factor.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Trade Wars’ Bite on Manufacturing Jobs Looks Deeper

Tags

2020 elections, aluminum, China, Jobs, Labor Department, manufacturing, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, private sector, steel, tariffs, Trade, trade war, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s U.S. jobs report (for September) contained much better news for President Trump and his supporters in terms of the economy’s overall performance than it did in terms of his trade policies. American employment on net rose by a decent 136,000 sequentially last month, and the revisions (which boosted the July and August numbers by a total of 45,000) were especially encouraging.

But payrolls in domestic manufacturing – a sector heavily exposed to trade – shrank month-to-month by 2,000. That decline was the first such dip since March’s 3,000. And despite the big positive revisions in overall employment, manufacturing’s left its modest recent hiring record virtually unchanged.

Worse for the President, manufacturing’s metals-using industries in September continued their worrisome recent transition from employment out-performers for the first half year or so after the first duties on steel and aluminum were levied to employment laggards.

Moreover, although manufacturing employment does face two obstacles having nothing to do with the Mr. Trump’s trade wars – Boeing’s safety woes and the strike that began last month against General Motors – damage from the former isn’t yet evident in the jobs data, and the latter probably began too recently to be showing up in the numbers yet.

The impact of the much broader China tariffs remained as elusive as ever, largely because of the on-again, off-again nature of the President’s policies, along with changes and threatened changes in tariff rates on so many goods. But even if Mr. Trump was a model of consistency on this score, the China levies’ effects would be fiendishly difficult to gauge because manufacturing inputs from China are used so broadly but so unevenly by domestic manufacturers.

By contrast, the trends for the metals-using industries look clear enough. This time, I’ll present not only their employment changes since April, 2018 (the first full month in which the metals levies were in effect) and September, but the same employment changes for an earlier post-tariff period. First, the latest numbers:

                                                   Old thru Aug     New thru Aug      Thru Sept

entire private sector:                  +2.30 percent    +2.31 percent    +2.40 percent

overall manufacturing:              +1.73 percent    +1.73 percent    +1.71 percent

durable goods:                           +2.10 percent    +2.10 percent    +2.05 percent

fabricated metals products:        +1.58 percent   +1.56 percent    +1.36 percent

non-electrical machinery:          +2.19 percent    +2.20 percent   +1.95 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:        0 percent         -0.23 percent    -0.69 percent

household appliances*:               not available     -6.31 percent    not available

aerospace products & parts*:      not available    +8.38 percent    not available

*data are one month behind

The loss of the metals-using sectors’ employment momentum in relative and absolute terms can be easily seen. But the more important comparison is between the above figures and those below, which present these trends for the first 10 months of the metals tariffs.

                                                   Old thru Dec    New thru Dec      Thru Jan

entire private sector:                 +1.37 percent   +1.36 percent   +1.60 percent

overall manufacturing:             +1.45 percent   +1.39 percent   +1.49 percent

durable goods:                          +1.67 percent   +1.72 percent   +1.97 percent

fabricated metals products:      +1.75 percent    +1.57 percent   +1.78 percent

non-electrical machinery:        +2.20 percent    +2.33 percent   +2.57 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:  +0.77 percent     +1.07 percent   +1.15 percent

household appliances*:            not available      -2.21 percent     not available

aerospace products & parts*:   not available     +5.51 percent    not available

*data are one month behind

This table shows that except for the household appliances sector (which has faced a separate, product-specific set of tariffs on large household laundry equipment since February, 2018), and automotive, the metals-using sectors were creating new employment at a considerably faster pace than both the overall private economy and overall manufacturing. And automotive was closing the gap.

Aside from trade, the White House, and everyone seeking the best for the U.S. economy, should also be troubled by the drop in September in the year-on-year manufacturing jobs increase to 117,000. That’s the worst such performance since August, 2017’s 112,000 and less than half the rate of the previous September annual improvement (266,000).

Better news for Trump-ers? Manufacturing job creation during the first 31 months of the Trump presidency is still much better (464,000) than during the last 31 months of former President Barack Obama’s administration (198,000).

Matters look better for the President (and manufacturing workers) on the wages front. Although industry’s pre-inflation hourly pay only inched up on month by 0.07 percent, that result beat the 0.04 percent dip for the overall private sector. (The Labor Department, which tracks the employment and wages figures, doesn’t monitor public sector wages since they’re set largely by politicians’ decisions, not largely by market forces. Therefore, they say almost nothing about the state of the labor market or the economic in general.)

Moreover, this relatively good manufacturing’s wage performance continued a slow relative catch up trend that began this year. Since January, current-dollar private sector pay is up 1.92 percent, versus 2.20 percent for manufacturing workers.

All the same, since the current economic recovery began, in mid-2009, private sector wages have risen by 26.87 percent. Manufacturing’s increase? Only 21.03 percent. And these manufacturing wages rose faster during the last 31 months of the Obama presidency (6.04 percent) than during the first 31 months of the Trump administration (5.53 percent). 

The safest economic conclusion seems to be that manufacturing hiring is hardly in the dumps – as suggested by the latest (also September) soft data from the Institute for Supply Management.  Nor does this looks like a “Tariff-mageddon” is upon us. But manufacturing job creation is also well off 2018’s robust pace, and the more so in major trade-affected industries . And its underlying situation will as more difficult to describe the Boeing and General Motors effects become visible (assuming the auto strike isn’t settled quickly).

But as cautious as that analysis is, the political implications as the 2020 presidential campaign heats up are even murkier. For barring a dramatic change in the manufacturing picture, they’ll depend on voters deciding whether the Trump manufacturing, trade, and overall economic record are good enough.   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is Trump’s Trade War Really Killing Manufacturing Exports?

Tags

{What's Left of) Our Economy, manufacturing, Trade, recession, exports, tariffs, dollar, exchange rates, Institute for Supply Management, Trump, trade war, IHS Markit

The economics and investment worlds have plunged into near-panic mode over a report yesterday on American domestic manufacturing whose headline number was the worst since recessionary 2009. The September results from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) have been interpreted as a sign that a U.S. recession has just become much more likely, and an unusually bad finding for export orders triggered a burst of analyst claims that President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies were the main problem. (See, e.g., this article.)

In fact, the ISM report itself stated that “Global trade remains the most significant issue….”

So is the evidence finally reaching critical mass that the President’s approach to trade is backfiring? Here’s why that conclusion seems like a big stretch.

First, the ISM and similar reports present “soft data.” That is, they don’t contain actual figures on production, employment, export orders, or other indicators. Instead, they feature findings on how many of the manufacturers they survey say their results on these and other fronts are worsening and how many are observing improvement.

The scope for error here is made clear by the release yesterday of another closely followed American manufacturing gauge – from IHSMarkit.com. According to this soft data report, September was domestic industry’s best month in the last five, and better orders from American customers were enough to keep U.S. manufacturing in growth mode despite a seriously sagging export business.

Second, as for the most authoritative hard data on manufacturing output, it comes from the Federal Reserve. As my latest update on RealityChek showed, its latest industrial production statistics show that the sector remains in a shallow recession, but that production has been turning up recently.

At the same time, manufacturing employment continues to stumble, and in particular, industries most affected by the Trump tariffs have turned in recent month from employment leaders to employment laggards.

Third, just as I’ve presented the evidence showing that manufacturing’s current recession is anything but its first slump since the U.S. economy’s current expansion began in mid-2009, the current export downturn (which is supported by the hard data) is anything but unprecedented during this period, either.

The table below shows the recovery-era annual changes in total manufacturing exports (the broadest measure of such shipments), global economic growth, and the value of the dollar. The export and growth figures are in pre-inflation dollars.

         total exports         % change          world growth           dollar’s value

08     $1.121872t

09     $0.916726t       -18.29 percent      -5.15 percent          +11.43 percent

10     $1.100394t      +20.04 percent     +9.44 percent             -7.13 percent

11     $1.276906t      +16.03 percent   +11.08 percent            +0.41 percent

12     $1.341398t        +7.40 percent     +2.30 percent            +1.58 percent

13     $1.375170t        +2.52 percent     +2.86 percent             -0.67 percent

14     $1.403782t        +2.08 percent     +2.73 percent            +1.62 percent

15     $1.317019t         -6.18 percent      -5.41 percent          +15.65 percent

16     $1.246011t         -5.39 percent     +1.47 percent            +5.45 percent

17     $1.323574t        +6.22 percent     +6.29 percent            +2.26 percent

18     $1.400022t        +5.76 percent     +6.07 percent           -10.85 percent

18 ytd  $0.812914t

19 ytd  $0.796902t    -1.97 percent         2.60 percent*          +3.82 percent

*latest World Bank estimate for 2019

As should be clear, manufacturing exports so far this year are off by less than two percent (the new U.S. monthly trade figures, for September, will be out Friday morning) – a decline much smaller than those in 2015 and 2016, when no President was conducting a trade war. Quite the contrary. And once the current expansion ended its early “snapback” phase, manufacturing export growth was pretty underwhelming. Indeed, manufacturing export growth rates sank below global growth rates in 2013 and haven’t recovered by this measure since – although the gap closed markedly during the first two Trump years.

Overall, in fact, since Mr. Trump’s trade policy about-face began in earnest (with metals tariffs imposed in March, 2018), manufacturing exports have held up pretty well considering that global growth (i.e., the health of the foreign markets to which American manufacturers are trying to sell) has slowed considerably (partly due of course to the impact of the trade war in a world outside the United States that’s still overwhelmingly dependent on amassing exports and trade surpluses in order to grow adequately).

And don’t forget exchange rates – which go far toward determining the cost and therefore appeal of U.S. exports versus the competition. Their impacts operate with a time lag, but even with all the complexities of measuring such effects, with the dollar hitting 29-month highs in absolute terms on Tuesday, it’s difficult to argue credibly that the Trump tariffs are the predominant cause of American manufacturing’s export woes.

Indeed, it’s at least as plausible to contend that manufacturing exports’ performance this year has been especially encouraging given that disrupting global supply chains and returning them to the United States – which obviously adds to the near-term challenges faced by American multinational and domestic manufacturers alike – are among the President’s main trade war objectives. And since the full benefits of Mr. Trump’s new trade policy approach can’t possibly quickly, these indications of resilience by U.S.-based industry have to be seen as good news for anyone hoping for an enduring American manufacturing revival.       

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Vital Globalization Lesson from South Korea

Tags

China, Financial Times, industrial policy, Japan, self-sufficiency, South Korea, technology, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As Americans continue debating the merits of remaining dependent on supplies of key products from China (including state-of-the-art 5G telecommunications technology), a great example of why self-sufficiency can be crucial – along with laying adequate groundwork – has just come from an economy much smaller than the United States’ and capable of standing on its own in many fewer areas: South Korea.

In fairness, never during its remarkable rise from deep impoverishment and war-time devastation has South Korea bought the basic principle underlying the generally open trade (and investment) policies that have shaped the global economy throughout the post-World War II era. That is, its leaders have never been willing to prioritize worldwide efficiency by permitting market forces to determine which of their industries would excel.

Indeed, South Korea has been one of the world’s most hermetically sealed economies and hasn’t even been able to cite legitimate national security concerns for its approach. After all, it’s been staunchly defended by the United States for decades – even enjoying the presence of American military tripwire units aimed at forcing, to the greatest extent possible, Washington to risk nuclear attack on the American homeland in Seoul’s defense.

Recently, however, South Korea encountered an economic threat that it – understandably – concluded posed unacceptable risks to the high tech industries that have created so much of its prosperity. Because of a dispute centering on from compensation for atrocities committed by Japan during its long-time colonial rule over South Korea, Japan in July cut South Korean tech companies off from supplies of three chemicals needed to make numerous key products, including semiconductors and advanced displays (computer and TV screens). Japan also removed South Korea from its list of countries enjoying preferential trade status.

And as the Financial Times reported last week, in response, Seoul has decided not simply to accept that Japan’s curbs would surely reduce the competitiveness of its tech sector, and to leave to the subsequent workings of market forces to determine what types of activity would dominate its economy – and determine its fate. Instead, it’s decided to build up its own capabilities in electronic inputs in order to reduce its vulnerabilities to even broader restrictions that Japan might impose as long as this bilateral trade war lasts – and surely in order to cut its exposure to similar potential threats from elsewhere.

According to the Financial Times, “Seoul plans to invest more than Won 5tn between 2020 and 2022 in research and development, in an attempt to localise about 100 different components and materials in the next five years. South Korea has also said it will provide tax breaks, cut red tape and encourage co-operation between big companies and their small suppliers to accelerate the localisation process.”

Nor is South Korea’s government is unlikely to pay much heed to any whining about short-term cost pain from consumers or companies elsewhere in these high tech supply chains. Its officials “stress the importance of diversification. ‘Cost savings is no longer the best thing for our companies. Risk hedging has become much more important.’”

And Seoul seems completely unimpressed with the warnings from conventional economists, like the one who stated “No country can be fully self-sufficient. Focusing on local substitutes only can bring more negative side effects. They may end up having to buy expensive local parts and materials although they can be easily sourced abroad at cheaper prices.”

For the South Korean government understands that Japan’s cutoffs mean that vital parts and materials may not always, or often enough “be easily sourced abroad at cheaper prices” – or at any prices.

Moreover, although it’s no doubt true, as the article contends, that South Korea is behind Japan technologically, Seoul’s drive for greater self-sufficiency is no pipe dream. For the country has built impressive enough technological wherewithal to endow these policies with a solid foundation. Indeed, there’s considerable evidence that decades of “Korea First” industrialization policies have been keys to the South’s long record of rapid gains in global technological competitiveness.

Not that South Korea has an easy row to hoe, as this piece indicates. But here’s where we come to the lessons for the United States: Despite longstanding and offshoring-friendly trade and globalization policies, it remains the global technology leader and therefore boasts advantages that dwarf South Korea’s – or any other country’s. Even better, it’s developed a tried and true formula for fostering world-class innovation, in high tech industries ranging from pharmaceuticals (think “National Institutes of Health”) to aerospace and software and information technology (think “Pentagon”).

In other words, the United States has more than enough “wallet” to overcome the technology threat posed by China, or any other possible rivals – though the Trump administration’s industrial policy initiatives could stand considerable improvement. But the President’s China trade policies show that, for the first time in decades, the United States has a leader with the will.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The AP’s Manufactured Nonsense About Manufacturing

Tags

AP, Associated Press, Calvin Woodward, fake news, innovation, Jobs, manufacturing, productivity, research and development, technology, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Associated Press (AP) is a ginormous global news organization, and its reach is especially widespread here in the United States (although I couldn’t find figures breaking out its American clientele specifically). So it’s a big deal when one of its highest profile writers spreads the kind of utter claptrap about domestic U.S. manufacturing that Calvin Woodward just peddled in his new piece on President Trump’s views on the economy.

In an article posted today, Woodward portrayed Mr. Trump’s emphasis on industry (and other elements of his worldview) as nothing more than a pathetic and downright dangerous exercise in nostalgia for the “grunt work of old” that ignores how “Industry, technology and much of the culture are finding new ways of doing and living” and how “U.S. prosperity has been driven for decades by services, technology and new things….”

Some confidence in Woodward’s conclusions might be justified if he relied on manufacturing specialists or even economists to support them. But the authorities he cites are a “professor of communications” and a psychologist who “studies nostalgia from Britain’s University of Southampton.”

Not that economists have been killing it in recent decades in properly evaluating the importance of manufacturing. But if Woodward had bothered to consult one,  the odds would have been higher that he’d have encountered the idea that industry is kind of important for any country seeking to build or maintain a world-class military. Or” that it’s historically been the U.S. economy’s leader in productivity growth (although as RealityChek regulars know, it’s recently been losing its mojo on that score). Or that it boasts one of the nation’s biggest employment multipliers – meaning that the creation of each American manufacturing job generates an outsized number of jobs elsewhere in the economy compared with employment increases in most other sectors. Or that manufacturing accounts for the lion’s share of American business research and development spending. 

That last fact is especially important for Woodward and others of his ilk to know. For it makes clear that if the United States is to keep generating the “technology and new things” that of course are central to its hopes for continued (much less greater) prosperity, it has better keep its manufacturing base world class.

I’ll leave it to you to judge whether Woodward’s article qualifies as Fake News.  But there can’t be any legitimate doubt that it’s manufactured nonsense.   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Offshoring Lobby Admits Americans are Standing Tall in the China Trade War

Tags

2020 elections, capex, Charles Koch, China, CNBC.com, consumers, Democrats, inflation, manufacturing, national security, recession, slowdown, Trade, trade war, Trump, Xi JInPing, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Another trade war myth bites the dust! And its demise is especially big news, given that its killers are some of the leading myth-makers.

Specifically, as reported by CNBC,com, top officials of a major lobbying campaign aimed at forcing President Trump to overturn his tariff-heavy trade policies, and in particular, to make nice with China, have openly admitted that the ace-in-the-hole they thought they held turned out to be joker. According to a CNBC posting yesterday, the political network funded partly by billionaire libertarian Charles Koch has concluded that their efforts to restore the pre-Trump, offshoring-happy, U.S. trade policy status quo have failed because it completely misread the American public’s willingness to pay an economic price for combating China’s trade predation.

This news comes on the heels of ongoing evidence that, contrary to widespread predictions from economists, think tank hacks, globalist politicians, and the Mainstream Media reporters who keep taking their cues from all these trade zealots, raging American inflation has not been ignited, business investment has not been paralyzed, domestic manufacturing has not suffered a death blow (though it’s been in a shallow recession for a year), and the economy has not plunged into recession (though growth has slowed).

The advertising-focused Koch drive sought to convince President Trump to back off his strategy of trade pressure by exploiting the selfishness of U.S. consumers in particular and the supposed vulnerabilities of the U.S. political system. The apparent central assumptions (and they’ll be familiar to anyone who’s been following Mainstream Media coverage of trade issues): Affluent, and indeed spoiled, Americans have much less tolerance for economic pain than their long impoverished Chinese counterparts; and China’s dictators will find it much easier to resist any public pressure that did develop than American leaders. Therefore, the Koch operatives reasoned, stoking fears that Mr. Trump’s tariffs would supercharge retail prices in particular and kill jobs by prompting retaliatory Chinese measures and slumping American capital spending would set off a political firestorm that the President would need to extinguish if he hoped to win reelection.

But at a briefing it held in New York City yesterday, a Koch official told reporters that “The argument that, you know, the tariffs are adding a couple thousand dollars to the pickup truck that you’re buying is not persuasive. It doesn’t penetrate with the people that are willing to go along with the argument that you have to punish China.”

Nor did the Koch campaign make this decision lightly. The CNBC.com piece noted that “the network came to this conclusion after conducting weekly focus groups on trade policies.” Also cited in the post was a recent national poll showing that “63% of registered voters believe tariffs will ultimately hurt the United States more than China, but 67% of the electorate is convinced it’s necessary to confront China over its trade practices.”

In other words, the American public is wiser and more farsighted than the U.S-owned businesses that have worked overtime to help strengthen the Chinese economy – including by voluntarily transferring to the Chinese the technology they need to upgrade their mechanisms of repression and modernize their military. And everyday Americans are much smarter than those companies that China has begun victimizing once Beijing concluded they’d outlived their usefulness, but that keep hoping against hope that enough boot-licking will save their corporate skins in the Chinese market. Because the American public evidently understands that U.S. prosperity and national security alike require reversing these China-enabling policies, and that slightly more expensive imports from China are a small price to pay for preserving and achieving these goals.

Ironically, the poll indicates that the Koch campaign (along with similar efforts) has succeeded in one respect: It represents some evidence that Americans believe that their country is more vulnerable to a trade war than China – even though the Chinese economy is much more trade dependent, and even though, as noted above, the United States keeps growing (albeit more slowly), and its overall inflation remains subdued by any reasonable standard.

Maybe that’s why the Koch network says it’s far from giving up, and is considering delivering the same message with different tactics. Two seem especially promising to these Friends of China:

>“putting together a team of almost 100 business leaders to call on the Trump administration and lawmakers to end the trade war with China”; and

>educating “100,000 activists in at least 35 states about the potential negative impact of using tariffs to battle China. Those volunteers will then be expected to start reaching out to their congressional leaders. The network hopes these activists can convince lawmakers on Capitol Hill to stand up against the administration’s current trade policy. The latest phase of the Koch campaign is expected to cost the network millions of dollars.”

Of course, short of a major economic downturn, if the Koch network has already established that the public is rejecting its advertising-carried China fear-mongering, it’s unclear why President Trump would be more responsive to the 100 business leaders than he’s been to date? And why would most Members of Congress not already backing China coddling pay more much attention to the 100,000 activists?

That’s a question that also needs to be asked by some other major actors in the U.S.-China trade war: the majority of current Democratic presidential candidates, who clearly believe that there’s lots of voter China-related trade whining that they can turn into votes, and ultimately into victory over Mr. Trump; and Chinese dictator Xi Jinping himself, who just as clearly believes that if the President is defeated, he’ll be back to dealing with Uncle Sucker on trade – and so many other fronts.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Some Manufacturing Pushback Versus Tariff Gloom-Mongering

Tags

aluminum, Federal Reserve, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, steel, tariffs, Trade, trade war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Is U.S. domestic manufacturing emerging from its recent funk? This morning’s Federal Reserve industrial production figures (for August) certainly supply some compelling evidence. And some of the nation’s major metals-using industries – widely portrayed as major victims of Trump administration tariffs that have been in place since early 2018 on steel and aluminum – led the pack last month.

August’s 0.53 sequential real output increase wasn’t enough to pull domestic industry out of its current technical recession. But it did shorten the length of the downturn considerably. As of the previous industrial production report, manufacturing had been in recession since April, 2018 – with its inflation-adjusted output down 0.004 percent.

Today’s data revealed that constant-dollar production has now fallen 0.36 percent since the previous August. In addition, since its latest bottom (this April), after-inflation manufacturing output is up 0.89 percent. And sequentially, this production is up three of the last four months.

Moreover, the strong August performance of the metals-using sectors was noteworthy. These industries have faced wide-ranging tariffs on steel and aluminum since March, 2018, with April being the first full month in which the duties were in effect. (Major appliances have been an exception – they have also been coping with separate levies on large household laundry equipment since February, 2018.) As reported by RealityChek last month, some of these metals-users suffered a miserable July, indicating that the metals tariffs were finally taking a measurable toll, either because of the higher input costs they created, the greater uncertainty they generated, the impact of retaliatory foreign tariffs, or some combination of all three.

But as demonstrated by the following table, they regained much of their momentum relative to the rest of manufacturing last month. These figures represent the changes in their real output since April, 2018, with the data for manufacturing overall used as a control group.

                                              April thru June    April thru July    April thru August

overall manufacturing:         +0.42 percent       -0.01 percent        +0.54 percent

durables manufacturing:      +1.57 percent       +1.37 percent       +1.98 percent

fabricated metals products:  +1.89 percent      +0.95 percent        +1.88 percent

machinery:                           +0.78 percent       -0.88 percent        +0.67 percent

automotive:                          +0.69 percent      +1.20 percent       +0.17 percent

major appliances:                 -4.84 percent       -4.39 percent        -2.04 percent

aircraft and parts:                +2.39 percent      +3.59 percent       +4.39 percent

With the exception of the automotive sector (where a big inventory overhang could finally be slowing output significantly) and aircraft and parts (which keeps chugging along, so far despite Boeing’s safety troubles) these major metals-using sectors enjoyed Augusts that were much stronger in terms of growth than their Julys. And in August, durable goods overall (the manufacturing super-sector in which the main metals-using industries are located), major appliances, and aircraft and parts have recaptured the relative growth lead they’d lost the previous month.

The effects of President Trump’s China tariffs have been much more difficult to ascertain for many reasons: Even the earliest have been in effect only since last summer. Their nature has been so on-again-off-again nature. The original tariff levels on some have been increased. Their use is so widely (but often so thinly and non-uniformly) spread throughout American industry. And the official lists of tariff-ed products don’t match up precisely with the classification system used by the Fed (and the rest of the U.S. government) to track trends in manufacturing and the rest of the economy.

All the same, here are results for a handful of sectors reasonably certain to have faced tariff pressure since last August. Each column measures real output changes since that month.

                                                   Aug thru June    Aug thru July    Aug thru Aug

overall manufacturing:              -0.48 percent     -0.89 percent      -0.36 percent

ball bearings:                             -2.48 percent     -2.30 percent      -2.23 percent

industrial heating equip:           -4.96 percent     -4.16 percent      -2.52 percent

farm machinery & equip:         -6.44 percent     -6.91 percent     +9.71 percent

oil/gas drilling platform pts:   +2.18 percent     -0.84 percent       -1.04 percent

The sample size is obviously very small, and the results are almost as obviously a wash.

Looking ahead, domestic manufacturing – and especially the metals-using industries – faces at least two visible possible hurdles: Boeing’s ongoing woes, and a new strike at General Motors. And literally no one outside the Oval Office (assuming President Trump does) knows what the future will bring in terms of tariffs on imports from China, retaliation from Beijing. And don’t forget the Congressional vote on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada [trade] Agreement that may be coming.

But the August manufacturing production data were unquestionably solid. They continued a decent recent streak for the nation’s industries, and indicated considerable resilience – including possibly a growing ability to adapt to a radically different and volatile trade policy environment.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Case for Confidence in the Consumer Confidence Surveys May be Weakening

Tags

Barack Obama, confidence, consumers, Democrats, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, independents, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, Trump, University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since psychology and emotions can affect how much individuals and companies spend and invest, and since U.S. economic growth does show signs of slowing from a solid but less-than-torrid pace, surveys purporting to track levels of consumer and business confidence understandably have attracted much more attention than usual.

One big possible problem, though: This era’s white hot political partisanship may be undercutting the usefulness of these soundings. The evidence comes from the widely followed University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment, and it indicates both that such partisanship has greatly increased and influenced the results since the 1980s administration of President Ronald Reagan, and that most recently, more of this bias has been demonstrated by Democrats than Republicans.

The Michigan findings – which break out results according to whether respondent “usually think” of themselves as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, “or what?” – don’t permit conclusions on longer term trends to be drawn with great confidence. That’s mainly because the university’s Survey Research Center presents only five months worth of results for the Reagan administration, which lasted for eight years, and only twelve months worth for George W. Bush’s similar two-term presidency. Nonetheless, the data for those two periods do contrast significantly with those for the Obama and Trump administrations, which are complete (and bring the story up through this month).

My measure of partisanship compares the degree to which the results for Republican and Democratic identifiers (for the headline Michigan number) diverge from the results for Independent identifiers – which I use as a proxy for non-partisanship, based on the assumption that such Americans don’t permit politics to impact their views on the economy. For example, if during a given month, Independents’ assessment of the economy registers as a 50, Democrats’ as a 20, and Republicans as a 60, the Democrats’ views would be judged to be more partisan. In order to produce figures for each presidency, I calculated the average monthly totals for each of the three political groups for the duration of that President’s administration.

This method shows, not surprisingly, that partisanship has always influenced assessments of confidence. That is, when Democratic Presidents hold office, Democrats’ confidence levels are invariably higher than Republicans’, and vice versa. But during the Reagan years, the average monthly ratings for the economy found by the Michigan researchers were Democrats, 87.66; Independents, 98.14; and Republicans, 108.12.

So the partisan effect clearly was present, but the Democrats’ and Republicans’ perceptions diverged from those of the Independents by about the same degree.

No results are presented for either George H.W. Bush’s nor Bill Clinton’s administrations, but the results for George W. Bush’s presidency were Democrats, 63.48; Independents, 66.04; and Republicans, 78.38. That is, Democrats were only slightly more downbeat. More specifically, their ratings of the economy were 96.12 percent as good as the Independents’, while the Republicans’ was 118.69 percent of the Independents’.

During the Obama years, these results were almost exactly reversed: The average confidence level recorded for Democrats was 84.61; for Independents, 72.67; and for Republicans, 69.63. In this case, the Republican ratings were 95.12 percent as good as the Independents’, while the Democrats’ were 116.43 percent of the Independent’ score. But the partisanship showed by the Democrats under President Obama was still almost exactly as great as that showed by the Republicans when George W. Bush served in the Oval Office.

This pattern has continued through Donald Trump’s presidency so far, but Democratic partisanship looks somewhat stronger compared with the results for the Obama years. During the 32 Trump months, the average Democrat’s rating for the economy has been 76.61, the average Independent’s was 96.37, and the average Republican’s was 120.14. As a result, the Democrats’ judgments on the economy have been only 79.50 percent as positive as the Independents,’ but the Republicans’ has been 124.67 percent the size of the Independent score.

Put differently, during the Obama years, the Republicans’ judgments about the economy nearly matched the Independents’ (being 96.12 percent of the Independents’ average), but during the Trump years, the Democrats’ judgments came to only 79.50 percent of the Independents’ average. Both Democrats and Republicans were much more bullish on the economy under their respective Presidents than were Independents, but the Republicans’ “over-optimism” under Mr. Trump hasn’t been dramatically greater than the Democrats’ “over-optimism” under Mr. Obama.

Another sign of relatively great Democratic partisanship:  According to the Michigan research, Democrats’ optimism about the economy so far this year has weakened much faster than Republicans’.  And Independents’ confidence is actually up slightly so far. 

One cause for optimism about assessing consumer confidence stems from the divergence between the results for the Trump presidency and those for his predecessors recorded by the Michigan researchers. They could suggest that the Trump years are outliers, and that if he’s defeated in 2020, partisanship will remain significant, but will return to normal levels – at least for recent decades. Pessimists, however, can just as reasonably argue that the Trump years might represent a decisive break from the recent past. If the latter group is right, assessing the economy’s prospects by using consumer sentiment surveys – already a challenging task –will become more difficult than ever.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Media Recession Cheerleading May Be a Thing

Tags

confidence, Federal Reserve, Mainstream Media, National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, recession, small business, Trade, trade war, Trump, uncertainty, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Can a national economy be talked into recession? And is this a danger for the American economy today? As known by anyone with even basic knowledge about economics, because psychology (and especially optimism and pessimism) so crucial determines business and consumer decisions, the answer to the first question unmistakably is “Yes,” at least in theory.

There’s a lively debate over whether that’s now a danger – with Donald Trump among others charging that his political and Mainstream Media opponents’ alleged determination to defeat him in the upcoming presidential election has turned them into prophets of doom – but obviously the winner can’t be determined until an actual downturn has begun.

But two notable clusters of evidence have just emerged lending at least some credence to the latter proposition. The first comes from today’s news coverage of a key measure of confidence in the economy – the monthly Optimism Index issued by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation’s leading small business organization.

In quintessential examples of unjustifiably downbeat reporting, the survey’s results were widely portrayed as a sign that the national economic sky is getting close to falling. “U.S. Small-Business Optimism Drops to Lowest in Five Months,” blared a Bloomberg.com headline. “Trump’s trade war is triggering a ‘sharp slowdown’ among American small businesses, warned Business Insider pointedly. “Small Business Optimism Index for August 2019 falls 1.6 points,” specified a brief YahooFinance.com item, which also blamed the Trump trade policies (as did the Bloomberg article).

But if you think about it, two of these headlines themselves strengthen allegations of alarmism. After all, five months isn’t an especially long time period. And 1.6 percentage points isn’t exactly a nosedive.

More important were the points buried in these stories. For example, it wasn’t until the fifth paragraph (of eight) that Bloomberg readers were told that “Even with the decline [from a prior reading of 104.7], the NFIB gauge remains elevated by historical standards, though it’s below the average level since Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.”

And get a load of this statement from the NFIB’s leader, which appeared in a gloomily headlined Dow Jones piece:

“‘In spite of the success we continue to see on Main Street, the manic predictions of recession are having a psychological effect and creating uncertainty for small business owners throughout the country,'” NFIB Chief Executive Juanita Duggan said in prepared remarks. ‘Small business owners continue to invest, grow, and hire at historically high levels, and we see no indication of a coming recession.'”

Further evidence of media fear-mongering – also tightly linked to Mr. Trump’s trade wars – has appeared in a new study from the Federal Reserve. In a September 4 report titled “Does Trade Policy Uncertainty Affect Global Economic Activity?” a team of Fed staff economists seek to document the widespread (and entirely reasonable) belief that “Higher uncertainty could lead firms to delay their investment and reduce their hiring, lower consumer confidence and spending, and ultimately curtail economic activity around the world” – including in the United States.

To make their point, they created and use two measures of uncertainty. The first “is based on searches of newspaper articles that discuss trade policy uncertainty.” The publications comprising this database were “Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Guardian, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.” The second was constructed “in an analogous way from automated text searches of the quarterly earnings call transcripts of U.S.-listed corporations.”

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of trade policy and its recent history might well immediately recognize one serious potential problem with the business-based uncertainty gauge: Public companies have been among the strongest and most influential supporters of pre-Trump trade policies, and have understandably been among the loudest critics – since the President’s pushback threatens established business models that have greatly boosted profits via sales to the high-wage U.S. market from offshored or other factories located in super low-cost countries like China and Mexico, and through the use of subsidized and artificially cheap inputs from numerous mercantile foreign economies.

But much more interesting and revealing: However strongly these companies logically would be expected in their public statements to harp repeatedly on the reality and potential of trade war-related problems (which can be considerably hyped, as I’ve demonstrated), the newspapers in the Fed report’s gauge cited such actual and possible difficulties much more – as the chart below shows. That’s why the solid line in the chart, showing the media’s mentions of uncertainty, has consistently been higher than the businesses’ mentions until very recently. (I know it’s a little hard to eyeball, but make the effort.)

Figure 1: Trade Policy Uncertainty

 

Do these findings mean that the economy has no serious problems, that the odds of a recession in the foreseeable future are negligible, and that Mr. Trump’s trade policy decisions may not exact significant economic costs? Of course not. They don’t even prove the charge that the media is seeking to oust the President by talking the economy down. But do they indicate that a “bad news sells” bias is pervading media coverage of the economy (and the trade war) at an especially crucial stage of the business cycle – and the political cycle? The above evidence makes this allegation look awfully credible.