(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A New Anti-Trade War Argument Bites the Dust

Tags

BLS, blue-collar workers, Bruce Yandle, Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumers, George Mason University, inflation-adjusted wages, Mercatus Center, private sector, real wages, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, wages, Washington Examiner, work week, workers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Bruce Yandle of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center has just added a novel claim to the list of catastrophes allegedly triggered by President Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies. In an October 28 Washington (D.C.) Examiner post, He seems to understand that amid rock-bottom rates of U.S. joblessness, it’s getting ever tougher to contend that the trade wars are killing American employment (though the rate of net job gains has certainly slowed in most sectors since the advent of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports in March, 2018).

So Yandle, a former university business school dean, has come up with another reason for the nation’s workers and aspiring workers to hate the curbs on trade: They’re making Americans work too darned hard for the stuff they like to buy. It’s an intriguing idea with just one fatal flaw: It’s not supported by a shred of evidence. P.S.: It takes about 10 minutes of internet surfing and arithmetic-ing to demolish.

Here’s Yandle’s case:

“[T]he occurrence of high employment in the face of a slowing economy can be the result of putting tariff-made rocks in our own harbors to keep out lower-cost foreign goods. When cheaper goods can no longer be imported, we have to work longer and harder to maintain the same level of consumption.

“Low unemployment is something to celebrate but let’s at least note that there are some people who might (quite reasonably) prefer to work a little less with more leisure time and cheaper cars, clothes, and tools, which are some of the goods that have been hit with tariffs.”

I’m unaware of any instances of workers complaining that, “I’d be able to knock off earlier and clean out Walmart if only for those stupid tariffs,” but what I suppose really doesn’t matter. Nor should what anyone supposes matter – because the federal government keeps statistics both on Americans’ hours on the job and their pay.

The results of my research are below. They show hours worked for various major categories of private sector employees, and the change in their hourly inflation-adjusted wages, over two relevant time periods. The first goes from the first full month of the Trump administration (February, 2017) through the latest data month (this September – tomorrow the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will release the October numbers), and from the first full month of the administration’s first important tariffs (April, 2018, for the steel and aluminum levies) through September. (Government employees’ wages aren’t monitored by BLS because their pay is set largely via politicians’ decisions, and therefore says little about the economy’s fundamental strengths or weaknesses.)

Total private weekly hours since Trump inauguration: 34.3 to 34.4

Total private weekly hours since 1^st (metals) tariffs: 34.5 to 34.4

Total blue-collar weekly hours since Trump inauguration: 33.6 to 33.6

Total blue-collar weekly hours since 1^st (metals) tariffs: 33.8 to 33.6

Total manufacturing weekly hours since Trump inauguration: 40.7 to 40.5

Total manufacturing weekly hours since 1^st (metals) tariffs: 41.0 to 40.5

Total manufacturing blue-collar weekly hours since Trump inauguration: 41.9 to 41.5

Total manufacturing blue-collar weekly hours since 1^st (metals) tariffs: 42.4 to 41.5

Total private real hourly wage since Trump inauguration: +2.53 percent

Total private real hourly wage since 1^st (metals) tariffs: +.1.86 percent

Total blue-collar real hourly wage since Trump inauguration: +3.05 percent

Total blue-collar real hourly wage since 1^st (metals) tariffs: +2.49 percent

Total manufacturing real hourly wage since Trump inauguration: +0.46 percent

Total manufacturing real hourly wage since 1^st (metals) tariffs: +0.83 percent

Total manufacturing blue-collar real hourly wage since Trump inauguration: +2.77 percent

Total manufacturing blue-collar real hourly wage since 1^st (metals) tariffs: +1.25 percent

For every category except two, over both time periods, workers’ weekly hours went down, and their real wages went up. That is, their leisure time and the buying power of their pay both have risen. They’ve been working less and been able to purchase more.

The first exception is overall private sector workers. Since Mr. Trump’s administration began, their work week has edged up – a tenth of an hour. Even so, their pay rose faster. So they don’t have much cause to complain about working too hard and enjoying the fruits of their labor less.

The second exception entails the overall blue-collar workforce (called “production and nonsupervisory employees” in BLS-ese). Its work week has stayed the same since the Trump inauguration. At the same time, however, this group experienced the fastest wage increase during this period. And its pay in constant dollars went up even faster after the metals tariffs were imposed – as its workweek dipped.

Moreover, this points to another problem with Yandle’s case:  All four categories of workers saw their workweek fall faster after the tariffs’ imposition than before. And in three of the four (except for manufacturing blue-collar workers) wages rose faster after the tariffs went on as well.

And in case you’re wondering, to create some context, whether American workers recently have been significantly better off in the absence of tariffs and trade wars, the answer is, “Not consistently during the current economic recovery.”

No one’s saying that these results show that the United States is a workers’ paradise, or is becoming one because of the Trump tariffs. But if anyone has a right to be grumpy about the above trends, it’s trade mavens like Yandle, who are pushing fact-free arguments to take the levies down.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Were the US Washing Machine Tariffs Really Failures?

Tags

consumers, Federal Reserve, General Electric, imports, jobs multiplier, large residential washers, LRWs, manufacturing jobs, metals tariffs, safeguard tariffs, South Korea, tariff-rate quota, tariffs, U.S. International Trade Commission, University of Chicago, USITC, washing machines, Whirlpool, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s as close to a slam dunk conclusion as can be – at least according to economists, think tank hacks, and Mainstream Media journalists: The early 2018 U.S. tariffs on large household laundry machines have been a dismal failure.

Or have they been?

The levies belong in a category different from those of the main Trump administration trade-limiting measures because they were first mandated by an independent federal agency (the U.S. International Trade Commission, or USITC) via a long-standing legal process.  And they’ve been panned for supercharging costs for consumers, and padding the profits of the domestic industry to extents that dwarfed the new production and jobs they fostered. (Here’s a typical example of the press’ evaluation, drawing on equally typical research from the venerable University of Chicago and the even venerable-er Federal Reserve.)

What has gone oddly unreported has been the verdict rendered by the USITC – which came out in August. Sure, the agency is grading itself. At the same time, it’s privy to the most authoritative data (taken from the domestic and foreign companies involved themselves), and it’s surely worth noting that the Commission paints a significantly different , and brighter, picture.

The tariffs, put in place in February, 2018, affected the nation’s total global imports of these products, but mainly impacted such “large residential washers” (LRWs) from China, Mexico, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam – the biggest foreign suppliers to the U.S. market. The duties’ aim: stemming a sudden surge of LRWs that injure U.S.-based manufacturers. But they don’t shelter the domestic industry forever.

After three years – the amount of time the Commission has determined these domestic manufacturers need to adjust – they’re phased out for both the final products and many of the parts covered in the “safeguard order.” In addition, consistent with their surge focus, they only apply to imports above a certain level of units – a trade curb known as a “tariff-rate quota.” In all, moreover, the ultimate objective is to give victim industries time to adjust and then stand on their own two feet. That’s why detailed adjustment plans are a condition of receiving tariff relief.

To some extent, the USITC’s judgment doesn’t contrast dramatically different from that of the tariffs’ critics. Both noted (in the Commission’s words) “generally increased prices” and “decreased imports.” The Commission, though reported some developments generally missed by the critics (especially “some improvement in the financial performance of continuously operating [domestic] producers,” and market share gains for these companies) and some given decidedly short shrift (“increased production by two new U.S. producers” – both of whose owners come from South Korea, undoubtedly because the option of supplying the American market through exports was sharply limited).

The Commission didn’t address one of the critics’ most compelling points – that the new U.S. jobs were created at a cost to consumers (via the higher prices they’ve paid) of a whopping $817,000 per job. But the University of Chicago/Federal Reserve study actually conceded that this number might be an exaggeration, since manufacturing jobs (like all jobs) create a “multiplier effect” – that is, they foster additional employment in related industries ranging from suppliers of inputs to transportation, packaging, and warehousing services. What these researchers didn’t mention is that manufacturing’s jobs multiplier is unusually high.

Moreover, like virtually all scholars of trade, tariffs, and employment, the Chicago/Fed team neglected other benefits of manufacturing job creation (and prevention of further manufacturing job loss). These include:

>avoiding the wage losses suffered by displaced manufacturing workers who find work in lower-paid industries (an especially important consideration given today’s very low overall unemployment rates)

>avoiding the revenue losses incurred by these workers’ communities and the economy as a whole due to reductions in their taxable income;

>avoiding the increased pressure on social programs required to serve employees who can’t find new jobs – which encompass not only unemployment compensation but spending that seeks to address the pathologies that often follow working class Americans’ deteriorating personal finances, like divorce, delinquency, alcoholism, and opioid and other drug use, not to mention higher mortality;

>and the costs incurred by local businesses because of worker-customers who can no longer afford as many of their products and services, which of course reduces business’ own taxable income and additionally crimps public finance at all levels. (See, e.g., this highly cited study.)

The USITC report, moreover, shed light on another big reason that the costs-per-manufacturing-job-saved might be exaggerated: Not all of the increased costs of the tariff-ed products are due to the tariffs. In particular, the Commission listed no less than 14 factors other than import competition (and the tariffs placed on these goods) that affect the prices of LRWs. They range from raw materials, transportation, and energy costs to competition levels from substitute and between domestic producers, U.S.-based production capacity, productivity changes, labor contracts, and state and local government incentives, and demand levels at home and abroad (because all the U.S.- and foreign-owned manufacturers sell all over the world). The USITC then proceeded to ask producers, importers, and purchasers (retailers) to rate the importance of these factors on prices since the tariffs’ imposition in February, 2018.

The answers were reported in table III-26, and import competition levels were anything but dominant. Indeed, their importance consistently was rated by all three stakeholder as lower or no greater than that not only of raw materials costs (higher due to entirely separate tariffs on metals that were imposed by the Trump administration) but of energy costs, domestic production capacity (surely limited over time by the previous import flood), the allocation of this production capacity to other products, productivity levels, labor agreements, transportation and delivery costs, and domestic demand levels.

And adding to the case for reducing the costs per job figure: According to the official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, after jumping by 16.31 percent from the February, 2018 onset of the tariffs through that November, they’ve since fallen by 9.73 percent (through September).

In fact, this development leads to a major point completely missed by the tariffs’ critics. As also indicated by the phaseout schedule and the linkage of the tariffs to the submission of adjustment blueprints, the levies were never intended to produce instant results, or to furnish crutches forever. The USITC describes the implementation of these plans starting on p. IV-5 and, more revealing, presents the evaluations of the retailers – who are bound to be the most demanding judges.

The reviews are mixed, but varying numbers of these companies stated that the two domestic recipients of the tariff relief – Whirlpool and General Electric – introduced new products (the most commonly cited improvement), upgraded product quality, expanded marketing campaigns, bettered their customer service, and taken other positive steps (Table IV-2).

Will these measures prove sufficient? Even after the tariffs come off, definitive answers will prove elusive, because as made clear, the LRW trade policy picture contains so many moving parts. What does look definitive, however, is that so far, the critics have engaged in a flawed rush to judgment.

 

 

(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: 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.

Making News: Back on i24News Tonight to Talk About This Sunday’s China Tariffs

Tags

China, consumers, i24News, Making News, tariffs, Trade, trade war

I’m pleased to announce that I’ll be returning to the U.S.-Israeli TV network i24News tonight. The subject:  How the new tariffs on goods from China slated to be imposed this Sunday will affect American consumers and the broader economy.

The network’s programs are normally available only to paying subscribers, but you can watch the segment, slated to start at 7:15 PM EST, if you sign up in time for a free trial at this link.

If that’s not possible, as soon as I get it, I’ll post a link that will enable you to watch a video of the appearance.

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

Making News: Quoted in National News Service…& More!

Tags

Breitbart News Tonight, consumers, IndustryToday.com, inflation, Making News, McClatchy News Service, Miami Herald, tariffs, trade war

I’m pleased to announce two recent media appearances and present the link to a podcast.

First, it was great to see the McClatchy News Service quote my views yesterday on whether President Trump’s tariff-centric trade policy is likely to boost U.S. consumer prices greatly.  Here’s the link, and since McClatchy is a national news organization, the piece has been published in major dailies like the Miami Herald.

In addition, on Tuesday, IndustryToday.com re-posted my August 25 RealityChek post explaining China’s unexpectedly (at least to me!) hard line in its trade conflict with the United States.  Here’s the link.

Finally, the podcast is now on-line of my Tuesday night interview on Breitbart News Tonight on the state of the economy – and whether a recession is coming soon.  Click here, and scroll down till you see my name under the August 27 programs.

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

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trump’s Latest China Tariff Moves – & Why They’re Mistaken

Tags

China, consumer goods, consumers, Hong Kong, inflation, producer goods, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, Xi JInPing, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you’re confused by President Trump’s latest China tariffs moves, don’t feel bad. They’re really confusing!

Much clearer is their main implication: Once more, the President has needlessly let China off the trade war hook – and significantly reduced the odds of U.S. success no matter how it’s defined.

To summarize the chain of announcements and decisions that have produced the present situation: As of August 1, in various stages, the United States had imposed 25 percent tariffs on $250 billion worth of goods imports from China based on the latest data. And on May 5, Mr. Trump threatened to place tariffs of 25 percent on the rest of China’s merchandise shipments to the United States (about $300 billion worth).

That announcement was seen as especially significant because the previous tariffs mainly hit what businesses and economist call “producer goods” or “intermediate goods.” They’re the parts, components, and materials that companies use to produce final products, including consumer products. As a result, even when they do lead to higher consumer prices, the role played by these duties is difficult for consumers (i.e., voters) to identify, much less complain about to the politicians responsible.

In addition, as I’ve frequently noted (e.g., here), tariffs on these producer goods often don’t lead to any inflation, or much inflation, at all, for a variety of reasons and combinations of reasons. In many instances, retailers and other businesses simply lack the needed pricing power. As a result, they often seek to persuade their entire supply chain to preserve market share by eating some or all of the higher prices and accepting lower profits. Alternatively, various parts of the supply chain – including the final customer – can try to offset tariff-induced price increases by boosting productivity. That’s actually good for the economy in the long run, as improved efficiency not only enables companies to absorb cost increases while maintaining and even increasing margins. Such better productivity tends to spur the development of new efficiency-enhancing products, services, and technologies – a great way to boost living standards in a healthy, sustainable way.

Yet the May Trump $300 billion threat – which stemmed from the President’s unhappiness with the lack of progress in the trade talks with China – would have finally hit most consumer goods imports. Therefore, it would have created the risk that shoppers would blame the President for any price increases they did encounter. Even worse, the timing of the threat practically ensured that these higher prices would start appearing just as holiday shopping heated up – or typically heats up.

In late June, however, after meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping at a global summit in Japan, Mr. Trump agreed to a trade truce and to hold off on the $300 billion threat. Two weeks later, though the threat was back on the table, according to a Trump tweet.

On August 1, following a new round of apparently unsuccessful trade negotiations and the President’s belief that China had broken a promise connect with the late June trade truce to buy more American farm products, Mr. Trump specified that ten percent tariffs on the $300 billion worth of consumer goods-dominated imports from China would begin on September 1. Just four days later, his administration announced another “hawkish” trade war decision – officially designating China as a country that manipulated its currency to gain trade advantages (by keeping its products artificially cheap and therefore making goods and services from trade competitors artificially expensive in comparison). At the same time, the currency decision by law doesn’t automatically result in new tariffs, although it could eventually bring about some other penalties.

And yesterday came the latest turnaround: Mr. Trump decided to postpone tariffs on an estimated $160 billion of the $300 billion from September 1 to December 15. Not coincidentally, as his remarks on benefiting holiday shoppers made clear, many of the items on the postponement list included particularly popular gift items like toys and smartphones.

In addition, tariffs on some $30 billion worth of imports from China would be lifted permanently (at least for now!). But new duties on some $110 billion worth of imports from China are at this point slated to go into effect at the beginning of next month, and this group, too, is dominated by consumer goods.

Commentators focusing on the postponed goods called the latest Trump move a cave to China spurred by the President’s fears of a falling stock market, weakening U.S. economy, and angry consumers. Others, pointing to the products that will be slapped with new levies, and to the continuation of previously announced tariffs, insisted that Mr. Trump was keeping considerable pressure on the Chinese.

I lean toward the former interpretation, for these reasons. First, there’s no sign that the President’s forbearance has won any concessions from China. Second, the tight Trump focus on appeasing holiday shoppers can only signal weakness to Beijing, and feed its hopes that it can prevail in the trade and broader economic conflict by waiting for the President to be replaced by a more conventional, more pliable chief executive in 2020. Third, the delay announcement came just before a batch of absolutely terrible economic data was released by China. And given Beijing’s history of publishing overly bullish figures, it’s a safe bet that its economy is even weaker than most recently indicated. Fourth, Xi Jinping is under pressure not only economically, but politically, due to the rising unrest in Hong Kong.

Fifth, it’s true that from the standpoint of China’s longer-term prospects, maintaining the tariffs on its producer goods matters crucially. For this category includes most of the high tech and other advanced manufactures that represent any economy’s hope for continued technological progress, and therefore faster, healthier growth and a stronger military. But the consumer goods matter politically – because since they’re largely labor-intensive in nature, they’re mass employers. And China’s dictators view high unemployment as a mortal danger to their rule.

Sixth, although it’s clear that U.S. investors hate the trade war, the President needs to remember that, however much he likes to tout the stock market as a barometer of his economic performance, these markets and the real economy are by no means identical. We’ll be getting some key economic data tomorrow, when the Federal Reserve releases its new report on industrial (including manufacturing) production. But so far, the manufacturing numbers have shown that, after a soft patch in the winter, both inflation-adjusted output and capital spending are trending upward again. So unless these and other upcoming data break notably from their most recent patterns, recession – and even further slowdown – predictions will keep looking far-fetched.

Importantly, none of the above analysis means that I’ve changed my view that no China trade deal acceptable for U.S. interests is possible because of insurmountable verification obstacles. Instead, America’s only realistic option is to keep disengaging economically from China – both to reduce U.S. economic reliance on an increasingly hostile power, and to weaken further the only country capable of posing noteworthy national security threats. As a result, however, Washington should pass up no opportunity to inflict pain on China’s economy. And although no one would be shocked if he reversed course yet again before too long, that’s exactly the mistake that President Trump just made with his latest China tariffs delay.

Making News: New Spectator Article on Trump’s Mexico Tariffs Threat – & More!

Tags

American Enterprise Institute, Breitbart.com, Claude Barfield, consumers, i24News, inflation, John Carney, Making News, Mexico, migrants, tariffs, The Spectator USA, Trade, Trump

I’m pleased to announce my publication of my newest magazine article.  The piece, which appears in The Spectator USA, explains why President Trump won his bet that a tariff threat would push Mexico to work harder to stop migrants traveling through its territory to the United States – and why he shouldn’t resort to this gambit again.

In addition, it was great to be quoted in John Carney’s post on Tuesday for Breitbart.com reporting that all those supposed experts who predicted raging consumer price inflation resulting from Mr. Trump’s various tariffs were dead wrong.  Here’s the link.

The video is also available of my Tuesday appearance on the American-Israeli TV network i24News.com.  Click here, and press the download button to access this interview on the Trump Mexico tariffs threat.  I also appeared (on short notice) on this subject on i24 on June 5, but unfortunately, the recording is no longer available.

Last Friday, June 7, I debated trade specialist Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute at a lunchtime event at AEI.  The program was not video-ed, though.

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

Making News: New National Interest China Trade War Op-Ed Posted…& More!

Tags

aluminum, Brietbart.com, China, consumers, imports, inflation, John Carney, Making News, steel, tariffs, The National Interest, Trade, trade war, Trump, Yahoo News

I’m pleased to announce the publication of my latest op-ed article.  Posted by The National Interest today, it presents a trove of data – including from the latest U.S. monthly trade report – showing that even though the outcome of the current U.S.-China trade talks is anyone’s guess, economic disengagement between the two countries is already underway.  Moreover, the process has sped up lately under President Trump.  Here’s the link.

The article was also re-posted on Yahoo.com.

Also, it was great to see Breitbart.com‘s John Carney quote my views in his latest post debunking widespread claims that the Trump tariffs on steel and aluminum, and on products from China, have already stoked raging consumer price inflation.  Click here to read.

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

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Unexpected Support for the Trump China Tariffs

Tags

Benedikt Zoller-Ryzdek, Bloomberg.com, capital equipment, capital goods, China, consumer goods, consumers, European Network for Economic and Fiscal Policy Research, Gabriel Felbermayr, inflation, producer goods, tariffs, Trade, trade wars, Trump, Xiaoqing Pi, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As I live and breathe! A pair of economists has just issued a report contending that China, not the United States, so far will be the big loser in the current trade confrontation between the two countries! In the process, they offer a badly needed explanation of why, in a real sense, exporters in China – not importers and therefore, presumably, consumers in the United States – will pay by far the highest price imposed by President Trump’s tariffs.

According to Benedikt Zoller-Ryzdek and Gabriel Felbermayr of the European Network for Economic and Fiscal Policy Research, Americans (whether households or business customers) certainly won’t get away scot free in the trade war as it’s been conducted so far. The authors calculate that the U.S. levies imposed so far by President Trump on imports of Chinese goods will boost the price of these products by an average of 4.5 percent.

The amount is pretty small, they contend, because American demand for these products is pretty elastic, as economists say. That is, it varies considerably depending on the price, and principally, if U.S. consumers find the post-tariff prices too expensive, they can switch fairly easily to alternatives – and even do without these products at all. Since these options are well known to Chinese producers and all the U.S. middlemen involved in making sure that Chinese-made goods reach their intended customers, they’ll know better than to practice much price-gouging.

Interestingly, the biggest hit to the nation is projected to come from consumer goods tariffs – the authors calculate that they’ll raise the prices of these products by 6.5 percent on average. In addition, they note that low-income Americans will bear the brunt of these higher prices, since they do buy more than their share of low-cost Chinese goods.

But the price increases for the Chinese capital equipment and various inputs used by American domestic companies (materials, parts, components, etc.) will be lower – only two percent for the former and 5.2 percent for the latter. So if the Zoller-Ryzdek and Felbermayr are right, the widely feared hit to U.S. industrial competitiveness resulting from the Trump tariffs should be eminently manageable for American domestic manufacturers – especially if they improve their chronically lagging productivity performances.

Chinese exporters, however, will far far worse, according to the study. The reason isn’t the one that President Trump has advanced – that they’ll need to pay ten and 25 percent tariffs they’re currently and might be charged all into the U.S. Treasury. Instead, these exporters will have to accept much lower prices for these exports if they want to keep selling to Americans – which will slash their profits, force them to withdraw from the U.S. market, and threaten their very viability if they do pull out, since alternatives in a slow-growing global economy won’t be abundant. The authors estimate the average price decline for Chinese exports at more than twenty percent, with makers of the most sophisticated such products (investment goods like capital equipment) suffering the steepest declines. Incidentally, those are the Chinese products and exports that the Trump trade team is most worried about.

And indeed, Zoller-Ryzdek and Felbermayr specify that this result was no accident: It stemmed from the administration’s “strategic choice of Chinese products.”

The European Network study doesn’t mean that the U.S. economy faces nothing but smooth sailing in the trade conflict. The authors note that the benefits of strategically picking and choosing Chinese products to tariff will fall significantly if the levies eventually extend to all U.S. imports from China. I also wonder if they’ve underestimated the resilience of Chinese exporters – because even a heavily indebted Chinese economy can employ so many means of subsidizing their losses. That’s also one big reason I’m skeptical that the current tariffs will decrease the mammoth bilateral merchandise trade deficit run by the United Stated with China by as much as the authors believe (nearly 17 percent).

Nonetheless, Zoller-Ryzdek and Felbermayr also anticipate a benefit from the Trump strategy that substantially undercuts the conventional wisdom among trade mavens in the United States. They observe that the increased tariff payments forced on Chinese exporters could, at least for a while, be used to compensate the low-income American consumers facing higher prices for Chinese-made garments and other everyday goods.

So although this study isn’t the last word on the U.S.-China trade wars, it provides important support for the Trump approach purely in economic terms. Coupled with America’s vital strategic stake in preventing China from stealing and subsidizing its way to greater global competitiveness in the high tech and advanced manufacturing industries crucial both to U.S. national security and prosperity, it’s a strong signal for the President to stay his current China course – and even to move more explicitly to disengage America from what clearly has been a losing and increasingly dangerous relationship.

Incidentally, I first got word of this report from Bloomberg.com reporter Xiaoqing Pi – who deserves credit for summarizing it in a brief item yesterday.