Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight on Economic and Foreign Policy Crises…& More!

Tags

Biden administration, CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, competitiveness, Gordon G. Chang, Immigration, Jeremy Beck, Making News, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, NumbersUSA, solar panels, tariffs, tech, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return tonight on the nationally syndicated “Market Wrap with Moe Ansari” to discuss many of the main (and often closely related) economic and foreign policy challenges facing the United States and the world at large. “Market Wrap” airs weeknights between 8 and 9 PM EST, these segments usually begin midway through the show, and you can listen live on-line here.

As usual, if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast of the inteview as soon as it’s available.

In addition, it was great to see Gordon G. Chang quote me yesterday in his latest blog post for the Gatestone Institute – on the Biden administration’s wrongheaded decision to suspend tariffs on imports of solar panels from Chinese-linked factories in Southeast Asia. Click here to read.

Also, last week, Jeremy Beck of the immigration realist organization NumbersUSA focused his latest blog post on my own take on some little known Open Borders-friendly provisions in the version of the big China and tech competitiveness bill passed by the House of Representatives. Here’s the link.

And I just found out that tomorrow night I’m slated to return to the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor” to analyze the latest twists and turns in increasingly tense U.S.-China relations. I’ll provide more details here tomorrow – which is a neat segue into my usual reminder tokeep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America’s Now Definitely Inflation-Nation

Tags

baseline effect, Biden administration, consumer price index, core inflation, CPI, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, prices, recession, stimulus, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s official U.S. report on consumer inflation was so bad that even what ‘s being pitched (for example, to a limited extent by President Biden) as kind of goods news isn’t anything close. As has so often been the case in the last year, one big key is looking at the so-called baseline effect. But the new (May) results for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) also highlight a reality that I and many others have been noting – the less-than-meets-the-eye difference between the headline and “core” CPI numbers.

The bad news about inflation is clear enough from the rise in the headline number – which tracks price increases throughout the entire economy. The 0.97 percent monthly increase wasn’t as scary as the 1.24 percent jump between February and March t(he highest since July, 1980’s 1.33 percent), but it was still the biggest since June, 1982’s 1.15 percent price surge.

Similarly, on an annual basis, May’s 8.52 percent overall CPI increase was lower than March’s 8.56 percent. But for all intents and purposes, both months’ results were the worst since December, 1981’s 8.91 percent disaster.

The (modest) ray of light that supposedly shone from the new inflation report came in the core figure – which strips out food and energy prices because they’re supposedly volatile for reasons having nothing to do with the economy’s alleged fundamental vulnerability to inflation.

To be sure, the monthly numbers shouldn’t have been the source of any encouragement. The May 0.63 percent sequential increase in core inflation was the hottest number since last June’s 0.80 percent, and represented the third straight month of acceleration.

Instead, glass-half-full types were pointing to the latest annual core increase. At 6.01 percent, May’s was the lowest since December’s 5.48 percent, and represented the third straight month of deceleration.

But here’s where the glass-half-empty types gain the upper hand. First, as I and – again – many others have observed, although food and energy prices do often move (down as well as up) for reasons largely unrelated to how overheated or not the economy may be. But energy prices in particular profoundly affect the cost of everything Americans make, sell, and buy that needs to be transported. And that means pretty much everything, including services, which typically rely on goods to get to customers. So there’s often an incontrovertible link between headline and core inflation.

Second, both energy and food prices are also often closely related to the economy’s overall levels of demand. And nowadays, they’re bound to keep rising as long as producers can pass them on to their customers. This in turn is the case because the latter can afford to pay more thanks to the unprecedented stimulus funds they received even after the economy was recovering strongly from the 2020 CCP Virus-induced crash,.

Third, there’s that baseline effect. Especially if its monthly rate is slowing, annual core inflation in the six percent neighborhood could be reasonably applauded if the previous year’s rate (the baseline) had been unusually low, or even negative (as it was for most of 2020). But the baseline figure for the latest May annual core inflation rate was May, 2021’s 3.81 percent (according to the latest government figures). That’s nearly twice the rate considered desirable by the nation’s chief official designated inflation-fighter, the Federal Reserve.

None of the ways to reduce this inflation rate way down reasonably quickly is a mystery to anyone influencing U.S. economic policies. Raising interest rates can get rid of a lot of the bloated consumer demand that’s contributed so much to recent price rises. For those emphasizing the Ukraine war’s major role in boosting food and energy prices, there’s the option of pressing for an end to the war sooner rather than later – even if it produces a morally ugly compromise.

But dramatically reducing consumer and business spending power enough to matter inflation-wise could bring on a recession – which the Federal Reserve still apparently believes can be avoided, at least judging from the modest monetary tightening it’s approved so far. And the Biden administration seems wed to letting the shots on ending the conflict to be called by Ukraine — which is so far rejecting the idea of making territorial or any other kinds of significant concessions.

So unless these situations change, the most reasonable conclusion is that inflation will keep raging until soaring prices finally tap consumers out by themselves. As an old adage goes, the likeliest cure for high prices may simply be high prices.

Im-Politic: So Much for the “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated”

Tags

Biden administration, CCP Virus, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, Im-Politic, vaccination, vaccine mandates, vaccines, Wuhan virus

Remember when President Biden was railing last fall that the CCP Virus crisis at that point was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” that was needlessly stressing the hospital system, and inexcusably exposing to danger those Americans who had done the right thing? How he used this claim to justify his push for vaccine mandates as a condition of employment for much of the U.S. workforce? And how numerous businesses, universities, and numerous state and local governments had already been using the same reasoning to shut the unvaccinated out of workplaces (both as employees and customers) and classrooms?

As I explained back then, this contention was completely unfounded because natural immunity and asymptomatic Covid had created towering, and likely insuperable, difficulties, in knowing the percentage of unvaxxed Americans who had even contracted the virus, much less who had been killed or hospitalized from it.

But just the other day, I discovered that even by the misleading evidence cited by the President and other fearmongers to make their case, this argument has completely fallen apart. The evidence – from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – ignores the above complications, and leaves out jurisdictions containing nearly 40 percent of America’s population.

In addition, its central supposed finding is presented – and has been ceaselessly parroted by much of the national media – without mentioning any of the context that all along would have made clear just how rock-bottom low the chances of being hospitalized or killed by the CCP Virus have been.

Specifically, claims such as “Recent CDC data shows unvaccinated people are 20 times more likely to die” left out the fact that this finding showed that in absolute terms, as of December (the latest CDC figures cited in this ABC News piece), about nine unvaccinated Americans per 100,000 were dying from the CCP Virus versus about half a vaccinated American per 100,000 dying. In other words, unvaccinated Americans had a 0.009 percent chance of dying of Covid, versus 0.0005 percent of the vaccinated. And these literally microscopic numbers warranted throwing the lives of tens of millions of Americans into turmoil?

But even if you’ve been in favor of such measures, the latest CDC figures (from April, which you can see at the above link) show that the gap has been cut in half since December in per-100,000 terms and virtually disappeared in absolute terms.

That is, 0.62 unvaccinated Americans per 100,000 were dying of the CCP Virus – about nine times greater than the vaccinated rate of 0.07 Americans per 100,000 versus the 20 times gap last December. That is, many fewer than one of every 100,000 unvaccinated and vaccinated Americans alike is now dying from the virus. And at least as interesting: These numbers mean that since December, the death rate for the unvaxxed has plummeted by 93.11 percent, while the rate for the vaxxed has barely budged.

In addition, and not so coincidentally, the CDC data on hospitalization rates for the vaxxed and unvaxxed display exactly the same trends.

Yet despite this evidence, many businesses are still insisting on some form of vaccine mandate and/or CCP Virus testing for employees, and the Biden administation is still pushing them for federal workers. So much, it seems, for “following the science” as well as for the always-dubious idea of a pandemic of the unvaccinated. 

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why U.S. Manufacturing’s Record Trade Deficits Aren’t Biting — Yet

Tags

Biden administration, CCP Virus, China, consumers, coronavirus, COVID 19, Covid relief, exports, Federal Reserve, imports, inflation, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, manufacturing production, stimulus, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Perceptive RealityChek readers (no doubt the great majority!) have surely noticed something odd about my treatment of trade-related developments and the American domestic manufacturing base. For most of the CCP Virus period, I’ve been writing both that U.S.-based industry has been performing well according to practically every major measure, and that the manufacturing trade deficit has been setting new record highs.

It’s not that I’ve ignored a situation that would normally strike me as being utterly paradoxical and even inconceivable over any serious time span. I’ve mainly attributed it to the pandemic’s main economic damage being inflicted on services industries, and to the Trump tariffs on Chinese imports, which have shielded domestic manufacturers from hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of competition that has nothing to do with free trade or free markets.

But the longer manufacturing has excelled as the trade gap has skyrocketed, the more convinced I’ve been that something else was at work, too. What finally illuminated this influence has been the recent controversy these last few weeks over President Biden’s suggestion that he might cut some of those Trump China tariffs in order to curb inflation.

As I’ve written previously (see, e.g., here), there’s no shortage of economic-related reasons to dismiss the claims that levies that began being imposed in mid-2018 bear any responsibilityfor inflation that only became worrisome three years later, and that reducing the tariffs would ease this inflation meaningfully. Even the Biden administration keeps admitting the latter point.

But the increasingly striking contrast between manufacturing’s strong output, job creation, and capital equipment spending on the one hand, and its historically awful trade deficits on the other points to the paramount importance of another explanation I’ve mentioned for doubting that tariffs have fueled inflation. It’s the role played by the economy’s overall level of demand.

I’ve written that trade levies will contribute to higher prices or boost prices all by themselves overwhelmingly when consumers are spending freely – and consequently when businesses understandably believe they have scope to charge more for tariff-ed goods. That is, companies are confident that the higher costs stemming from tariffs can be passed along to customers who simply aren’t very price sensitive.

Strong enough demand, however, has another crucial effect on manufacturing – and on other traded goods: It creates a market growing fast enough to enable domestic companies to prosper even when their foreign competitors are out-performing them and taking share of that market. In other words, even though all entrants aren’t benefitting equally, all can still benefit.

Conversely, when demand for manufactures is expanding sluggishly, or not at all, this kind of win-win situation disappears. Then U.S.-based and foreign industry are competing for a stagnant group of customers, and one’s gain of market share becomes the other’s loss. In this situation, increasing trade deficits mean that American demand is being met by imports to eliminate any incentive for domestic manufacturers to boost production or employment. Indeed, they become hard-pressed even to maintain output and payrolls.

Of course, even if trade deficits keep surging during periods of slow domestic demand, U.S.-based manufacturers can still in principle keep turning out ever more products and hiring ever more workers if they can achieve one goal: super-charging their export sales. But the persistently mammoth scale of the American manufacturing trade shortfall indicates either that foreign demand for U.S.-made goods almost never improves enough to compensate for reduced or stagnant domestic sales, or that foreign economies prevent such growth by keeping many American goods out, or some combination of the two.

Super-strong demand for manufactured goods is precisely what’s characterized the economy since the CCP Virus arrived in force. As a result, the pie has gotten so much bigger that domestic industry as a whole has had no problem finding enough new customers to support healthy production and hiring levels even though imports’ sales have been lapping them.

Specifically, between the first quarter of 2020 and the fourth quarter of last year (the last quarter for which current-dollar (or pre-inflation) U.S. manufacturing production data are available, the U.S. market for manufactures increased by 22.83 percent – or $1.518 trillion. Revealingly, this demand would have been strong enough to enable domestic industry to pass tariff hikes on to customers, and enable these levies to fuel inflation on at least a one-time basis. But tariffs of course have not been raised during this stretch.

Meanwhile, the manufacturing trade deficit soared by 64.31 percent ($566 billion). And the import share of the U.S. market rose from 29.50 percent to 32.47 percent.

But domestic industry was able to boost its production (according to a measure called current-dollar gross output) by 16.55 percent, or just under $954 billion. ,

Contrast these results with the pre-CCP Virus expansion. During those 10.5 years (from the second quarter of 2009 through the fourth quarter of 2019), the U.S. market for manufactured goods increased by just 45.37 percent, or $2.154 trillion. That is, even though it was more than five times longer than the above pandemic period, that market grew by only about twice as much.

The manufacturing trade deficit actually also grew at a slower rate than during the much shorter pandemic period (169.2 percent). But because the pie was expanding more slowly, too, the import share of this domestic manufacturing market climbed from 23.12 percent to 31.10 percent.  These home market share losses combined with inadequate exports were enough to limit the growth of U.S. manufacturing output to 34.64 percent, or $1.512 trillion. Again, though this 2009-2019 growth took place over a time-span more than five times longer than the pandemic period, it was only about twice as great. That is, the pace was much more sluggish.

And not so coincidentally, because pre-CCP Virus demand for manufactures was so sluggish, too, businesses concluded they had little or no scope to raise prices when significant tariffs began to be imposed in 2018. Further, the levies generated no notable inflation over any significant period even on a one-time basis. Companies all along the relevant supply chains (including in China) had to respond with some combination of finding alternative markets, becoming more efficient, or simply eating the higher costs.

The good news is that as long as the U.S. market for manufactures keeps ballooning, domestic industry can keep boosting production and employment even if the manufacturing trade deficit keeps worsening or simply stays astronomical, and even if domestic industry keeps losing market share.

The bad news is that the rocket fuel that ignited this growth spurt is running out. Massive pandemic relief programs that put trillions of dollars into consumers’ pockets aren’t being renewed, and Americans are starting to dig into the savings they were able to pile up in order to finance their expenses (although, as noted here, these savings remain gargantuan). Credit is being made more expensive by the Federal Reserve’s decision both to raise interest rates and to reduce its immense and highly stimulative bond holdings. And some evidence shows that U.S. consumer spending is shifting from goods like manufactures to services (although some other evidence says “Don’t be so sure.”)

Worse, when the stimulus tide finally recedes, domestic industry will likely find itself in a shakier competitive position than before. For without considerably above-trend demand growth, and with the foreign competition controlling more of the remaining market than before the pandemic, it will find itself more dependent than ever on maintaining production and employment (let alone increasing them) by winning back customers it has already lost. And changing purchasing patterns in place will be much more challenging than selling to customers whose patterns haven’t yet been set.

U.S. based manufacturing is variegated enough – including in terms of specific sectors’ strengths and weaknesses – that the above generalizations don’t and won’t hold for every single industry. But the macro numbers make clear that domestic manufacturing as a whole has experienced unusually fat years lately, and generally has been competitive enough to take some advantage of these favorable conditions. But industry’s continuing and indeed widening trade shortfall and market share losses in its own back yard should also be warning both manufacturers overall and Washington that many of domestic industry’s pre-pandemic troubles could come roaring back once leaner years return.

Those Stubborn Facts: Yes, Biden Really Has Opened the Border

Tags

Biden administration, Biden border crisis, border security, illegal immigration, immigrants, Immigration, migrants, Open Borders, Those Stubborn Facts

“We preliminarily estimate that illegal immigrants accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the foreign-born population since January 2021 — 1.35 million.”

– Center for Immigration Studies, June 1, 2022

 

Average monthly growth in U.S. foreign-born population during first Obama administration term: 59,000

Average monthly growth in U.S. foreign-born population during second Obama administration term: 76,000

Average monthly growth in U.S. foreign-born population during Trump pre-CCP Virus years: 42,000

Average monthly growth in U.S. foreign-born population sofar during Biden administration: 132,000

 

(“Foreign-Born Population Hit Record 47 Million in April 2022,” by Steven A. Camarota and Karen Ziegler, Center for Immigration Studies, June 1, 2022, https://cis.org/Report/ForeignBorn-Population-Hit-Record-47-Million-April-2022%29)

Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight Talking China Tariffs and Inflation…& More!

Tags

Biden, Biden administration, Breitbart.com, CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, GDP, Gordon G. Chang, inflation, Janet Yellen, John Carney, Making News, tariffs, trade deficit

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return tonight to “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor.” The segment, slated to air at 11:15 PM EST, will feature John, me, and co-host Gordon G. Chang discussing a bad recent idea that can’t seem to be killed off entirely – proposals to fight lofty U.S. inflation by cutting tariffs on some goods imports from China.

You can listen live at this link, and as usual, I’ll be posting a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

In addition, it was great to see my latest post on the trade deficit’s damaging impact on the shrinkage suffered by the U.S. economy in the first quarter of this year cited last Thursday by Breitbart.com‘s John Carney. Here’s the link.

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

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Still ISO a Coherent Biden China Strategy

Tags

Antony J. Blinken, Asia-Pacific, Biden, Biden administration, China, climate change, Cold War, decoupling, Indo-Pacific, Jimmy Carter, national interests, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, rules-based global order, Soviet Union, strategic ambiguity, Taiwan

In June, 1978, then President Jimmy Carter laid out in a speech the tenets that were going to guide his strategy toward the Soviet Union at a time when East-West tensions were mounting. His clear aim during this key juncture of the Cold War was telling Moscow what kinds of actions it could take to make sure that superpower rivalry was “stable” and even “constructive,” and what kinds would be sure to place it on a “dangerous and politically disastrous” path.

Unfortunately, the speech was widely considered to be such a confusing word salad that rumors quickly spread claiming that what Carter read were drafts from the hawkish and dovish groups of his advisors that he simply stapled together. This rumor turned out to be untrue (at least according to this study of Carter’s foreign policy), but the fuzziness of Carter’s bottom line surely helped ensure that U.S.-Soviet relations continued worsening for most of the remainder of his one-term presidency, largely because the Soviet Union became more aggressive – especially when it invaded Afghanistan.

I bring up this historical episode because Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken just gave a speech laying out the tenets of the Biden administration’s strategy toward China. It, too, seeks to ensure that today’s superpower relationship becomes more stable rather than move ever closer to conflict, but it looks just as incoherent as Carter’s address – and just as likely to produce the outcome it’s trying to prevent.

But I’ll start with a problem that was only barely detectable in Carter’s speech but that’s bound to undermine Mr. Biden’s efforts to deal with China successfully: a failure to identify American interests precisely and concretely. To be sure, the Carter speech wasted a great deal of verbiage on Soviet activity that never held any potential to endanger U.S. security or prosperity – especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Eventually, however, the President specified that “We and our allies must and will be able to meet any forseeable challenge to our security from either strategic nuclear forces or from conventional forces.”

These kinds of specific objectives were at best secondary themes of Blinken’s. Instead, his emphasis from the get-go was on defending and reforming “the rules-based international order – the system of laws, agreements, principles, and institutions that the world came together to build after two world wars to manage relations between states, to prevent conflict, to uphold the rights of all people.”

Not only can this definition of U.S. interests way too easily turn into a formula for wasting America’s considerable but ultimately finite resources on an infinite number of international troubles having nothing to do with the nation’s safety or well-being. But good luck motivating the American population and its military to fight or even sacrifice for an objective this gauzy.

At the same time, the kind of ambivalence so broadly conveyed by Carter toward the Soviet Union permeates the picture drawn by Blinken of China. For example, the Secretary argued that China

>”is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it.  Beijing’s vision would move us away from the universal values that have sustained so much of the world’s progress over the past 75 years”:

>rather than using its power to reinforce and revitalize the laws, the agreements, the principles, the institutions that enabled its success so that other countries can benefit from them, too…is undermining them.  Under President Xi, the ruling Chinese Communist Party has become more repressive at home and more aggressive abroad”:

> “has announced its ambition to create a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and to become the world’s leading power”;

> is “advancing unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea, undermining peace and security, freedom of navigation, and commerce….”

> “wants to put itself at the center of global innovation and manufacturing, increase other countries’ technological dependence, and then use that dependence to impose its foreign policy preferences.  And Beijing is going to great lengths to win this contest – for example, taking advantage of the openness of our economies to spy, to hack, to steal technology and know-how to advance its military innovation and entrench its surveillance state”;  and

> is “trying to cut off Taiwan’s relations with countries around the world and blocking it from participating in international organizations.  And Beijing has engaged in increasingly provocative rhetoric and activity, like flying PLA aircraft near Taiwan on an almost daily basis.”

In all, according to Blinken, “The scale and the scope of the challenge posed by the People’s Republic of China will test American diplomacy like nothing we’ve seen before.”

So given these malign aims and actions, how could Blinken also insist that

> “We don’t seek to block China from its role as a major power, nor to stop China…from growing their economy….”;

> “We know that many countries – including the United States – have vital economic or people-to-people ties with China that they want to preserve.  This is not about forcing countries to choose.  It’s about giving them a choice….”;

> ”The United States does not want to sever China’s economy from ours or from the global economy – though Beijing, despite its rhetoric, is pursuing asymmetric decoupling, seeking to make China less dependent on the world and the world more dependent on China.”; and that

> “as the world’s economy recovers from the devastation of the pandemic, global macroeconomic coordination between the United States and China is key – through the G20, the IMF, other venues, and of course, bilaterally.”

That last point, and a companion Biden administration argument about climate change, seem compelling – at least superficially. But think about it for a moment: Why would anyone holding the view of China’s hostile actions and intentions laid out by Blinken expect any meaningful cooperation from Beijing on anything?

Even on climate – that supposedly quintessential threat that respects no bordes – it logically follows that the kind of Chinese leadership depicted by Blinken will be working overtime to ensure that China minimizes any sacrifices it makes to prevent dangerous warming, and maximize those required of everyone else. Consequently, the most effective way to spur China to do its share and therefore boost the odds that the climate problem actually gets solved is to deny Beijing the economic power to stay off the hook.

There’s a big (and in my view, legitimate) debate currently underway over whether the United States should continue its longstanding policy of “strategic ambiguity” regarding defending Taiwan from China, or explicitly pledge to do so, as President Biden may or may not have done a week ago (and not for the first time). But there shouldn’t be any debate over whether America’s underlying strategy toward the People’s Republic should be as completely ambiguous – not to mention as nebulous – as the approach just articulated by Blinken.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Why Biden’s Somalia Decision Looks Literally Insane

Tags

Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab, Biden administration, Biden border crisis, border security, Donald Trump, globalism, Immigration, jihadists, migrants, Open Borders, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, September 11, Somalia, terrorism, terrorists

With all the headline news about major crises ranging from the Ukraine War to inflation to the infant formula shortage to the likelihood that abortion rights will be rescinded, RealityChek readers and others can be forgiven for overlooking the Biden administration’s recent decision to send a small contingent of U.S. forces back to Somalia. In fact, everyone can be forgiven if you can’t find Somalia on a map.

But the redeployent is eminently worth discussing because it’s the latest example of how foreign policy globalists (like President Biden) have their priorities completely ass-backward when it comes to dealing with global terrorism.

These units are back in this failed state on the Horn of Africa – after being withdrawn by former President Donald Trump in late 2020 – not because Somalia is located strategically or boasts any resources or export markets that matter to the U.S. economy. They’re back because the country has long been a headquarters for the jihadist group and major Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Shabab, and this organization “has increased in strength and poses a heightened threat” recently, according to the White House. Additionally, as observed by new Biden Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Somalia’s dismal excuse for a government is failing to prevent Al-Shabab from gaining the ability to launch terrorist attacks on the United States.

No one can dispute the need to protect the American homeland from foreign terrorist threats. But what’s so perverse about this Biden administration move is that it’s taking place after the President has taken numerous steps since his January, 2020 inauguration – many very early in this term – to weaken the security of America’s own border and thereby faciliate the entry of those terrorists.

Even worse, this Open Borders-friendly position has coincided with (a) growing numbers of apprehensions at U.S. borders of migrants from Turkey and other non-Western Hemisphere countries (including in Africa) and (b) growing numbers of such apprehensions of individuals on the federal government’s terrorist watch list. (See the official U.S. interactive feature here and the equally official dropdown menus here, respectively.)  The absolute numbers of the latter are small, but how many jihadists did it take to knock down the Twin Towers?

And speaking of Afghanistan, Biden’s sensible but operationally botched withdrawal was never accompanied by stronger border security measures, either.  Quite the opposite.  

In other words, unlike the Trump administration, the Biden administration is refusing to focus its anti-terrorism strategy on what the U.S. government can reasonably hope to control (securing its own borders). Instead, in the case of Somalia, it’s not only returning to, but doubling down on, an approach I’ve criticized before that focuses on what Washington can’t possibly hope to control – using the U.S. military to keep chasing down jihadists in failed regions like the Middle East and countries like Somalia, whose deep-seated dysfunction is bound to keep generating them. Is the President seriously expecting different results from doing this same thing over and over again? That’s of course a definition of something no one should want any U.S. leader to display.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Why Biden’s China Tariff Cutting Talk is So (Spectacularly) Ill-Timed

Tags

Biden administration, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, currency, currency manipulation, exports, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, tariffs, Trade, Trump administration, unemployment, Xi JInPing, yuan, Zero Covid

If the old adage is right and “timing is everything,” or even if it’s simply really important, then it’s clear from recent news out of China that the Biden administration’s public flirtation with cutting tariffs on U.S. imports from the People’s Republic is terribly timed.

The tariff-cutting hints have two sources. First, and worst, as I noted two weeks ago, two top Biden aides have publicly stated that the administration is considering reducing levies on Chinese-made goods they call non-strategic in order to cut inflation. As I explained, the idea that the specific cuts they floated can significantly slow inflation is laughable, and their definition of “non-strategic” could not be more off-base.

The second source is a review of the Trump administration China tariffs that’s required by law because the statute that authorizes their imposition limited their lifespan. The administration can choose to extend them, eliminate them entirely, reduce all of them, or take either or both of those actions selectively, Some tinkering around the edges may justified – for example, because certain industries simply can’t find any or available substitutes from someplace else. But more sweeping cuts or removals could signal a stealth tariff rollback campaign that would be just as ill-advised and ill-timed.

And why, specifically, ill-timed? Because this talk is taking place just as the Chinese economy is experiencing major stresses, and freer access to the U.S. market would give the hostile, aggressive dictatorship in Beijing a badly needed lifeline.

For example, China just reported that its goods exports rose in April at their lowest annual rate (3.9 percent) since June, 2020. Exports have always been a leading engine of Chinese economic expansion and their importance will likely increase as the regime struggles to deflate a massive property bubble that had become a major pillar of growth itself.

It’s true that dictator Xi Jinping’s wildly over-the-top Zero Covid policy, which has locked down or severely restricted the operations of much of China’s economy, deserve much of the blame. But Xi has recently doubled down on this anti-CCP Virus strategy, and low quality Chinese-made vaccines virtually ensure that case numbers will be surging. So don’t expect a significant export rebound anytime soon without some kind of external helping hand (like a Biden cave-in on tariffs).

Indeed, China seems so worried about the export slowdown that it’s resumed its practice of devaluing its currency to achieve trade advantages. All else equal, a weaker yuan makes Made in China products more competitively priced than U.S. and other foreign counterparts, for reasons having nothing to do with free trade or free markets.

And since March 1, China – which every day determines a “midpoint” around which its yuan and the dollar can trade in a very limited range (as opposed to most other major economies, which allow their currencies to trade freely) – has forced down the yuan’s value versus the greenback by an enormous 6.54 percent. The result is the cheapest yuan since early November 3, 2020.

It’s been widely observed that such currency manipulation policies can be a double-edged sword, as they by definition raise the cost of imports still needed by the Chinese manufacturing base. But the rapidly weakening yuan shows that this is a price that Beijing is willing to pay.       

Finally, for anyone doubting China’s need to maintain adequate levels of growth by stimulating exports, this past weekend, the country’ second-ranking leader called the current Chinese employment situation “complicated and grave.” His worries, moreover, aren’t simply economic. As CNN‘s Laura He reminded yesterday, Beijing is “particularly concerned about the risk of mass unemployment, which would shake the legitimacy of the Communist Party.”

For years, I’ve been part of a chorus of China policy critics urging Washington to stop “feeding the beast” with trade and broader economic policies that for decades have immensely increased China’s wealth, improved its technology prowess, and consequently strengthened its military power and potential. The clouds now gathering over China’s economy mustn’t lead to complacency and any easing of current American tariff, tech sanctions, or export control pressures. Instead, they’re all the more reason to keep the vise on this dangerous adversary and even tighten it at every sensible opportunity.

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of National Radio Interview on Biden Hints of China Tariff Cuts

Tags

Biden administration, CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, Federation for American Immigration Reform, Following Up, Gordon G. Chang, Immigration, inflation, John Batchelor, labor shortages, tariffs

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview last night on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor.” Click here for a great conversation with John and co-host Gordon G. Chang on why the Biden administration’s interest in cutting tariffs on imports from China makes no sense on any score – including inflation-fighting.

In addition, it was great (even I was mis-ID’d) to see my April 7 post on the pro-Open Borders/Cheap Labor Lobby’s phony claims of a national labor shortage quoted Monday in a blog entry put up by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

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