(What’s Left of) Our Economy: What Free-Trading Economists Can Learn from Main Street

Tags

Alan S. Blinder, consumers, debt, economists, free trade, income, producers, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

So you think that, even after the global financial crisis and ensuing painful recession predicted by hardly any leading economists, American leaders should keep taking this profession seriously on key issues like trade? Then you need to check out this new article by Alan S. Blinder.

It’s especially striking because Blinder is about as big in economic circles as they come, occupying a full professorship at Princeton University and having served as second in command at the Federal Reserve. But if he’s right – and by definition, someone like him should know – the consensus among economists about trade  stems from views about national economies that should disqualify those holding them from shaping policy.

According to Blinder, here’s how economists generally view an economy’s purpose: “to churn out the goods and services that people want, efficiently and at low prices, so that standards of living will be high. That’s why, for example, the Soviet Union failed and we succeeded.”

What about the public at large? “[T]he citizenry seems more attracted to the producers’ perspective: The fundamental purpose of an economy is to provide jobs.”

Thus when it comes to international trade, “Almost all economists favor open trade. It gets Americans cheaper and sometimes better goods, and enhances the efficiency of our economy. Trade isn’t, we insist, mainly about creating jobs or destroying them. It’s about deploying the labor of every nation where it is most productive. Economists see imports as the rewards for trade, exports as the cost.

“Public and political opinion often takes just the opposite perspective. Exporting is seen as the good part of trade—it creates jobs. Importing is a problem—it destroys jobs.”

The key term here is “producers’ perspective” – which, if you think about it for more than a moment, inescapably entails far more than the “jobs” on which Blinder somewhat condescendingly fixates. Of course, workaday folks are thinking first and foremost of their ability to earn income (overwhelmingly through jobs, since most aren’t wealthy heirs and heiresses). But a genuine producers’ perspective must involve all of the institutions and wherewithal needed to create jobs – i.e., a nation’s wealth-creating base.

Blinder does state that economists prize a nation’s ability “to churn out…goods and services…efficiently and at low prices, so that standards of living will be high,” and that by “deploying the labor of every nation where it is most productive,” trade contributes to this goal. But the consumers’-first devotion he attributes to economists points to a crucial truth: Such economists count heavily, at least, on low prices, not incomes, to create and even increase those high living standards.

Which is largely why, as Blinder and so many of his economics colleagues have written, they’re so indifferent to trade balances, and especially to trade deficits. Otherwise, they’d have to explain how economies significantly and/or chronically in the red – and thus by definition way short of earned income – can secure the resources needed to keep living standards at an acceptable level, much less raise them, without heavily borrowing, or selling off big chunks of their assets.

In other words, what Blinder is really saying is that economists believe that the consumption-led model of a national economy is sustainable, independent of whether that economy can generate enough income (from production) to pay for its spending responsibly (i.e., without running up excessive debt). What the public believes is that, without adequate sources of earned income (from a healthy production base), an economic system not only can’t produce jobs or high living standards. It can’t be viable in the first place.

Blinder is famous in part for what he calls “the Lamppost Theory, which holds that “Politicians use economics the way a drunk uses a lamppost—for support, not for illumination.” But their consumer-centric views raise the question of why responsible policymakers would use free trade-cheerleading economists for any reason.

Advertisements

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trump Tariffs to Raise Washing Machine Prices? Good Luck with That!

Tags

consumer price index, consumers, CPI, inflation, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, prices, South Korea, tariffs, Trade, Trump, washing machines, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s painfully clear that none of the journalists and offshoring lobby-funded think tank hacks who have parroted the threats by South Korean washing machine makers to raise their U.S. retail prices to offset tariffs imposed by the Trump administration last month has shopped for a washing machine lately. Nor have they looked at the price data for home appliances in America. If they had, they’d recognize that the South Koreans seem to be blowing so much smoke. For no one could possibly look at the U.S. washing machine market either first hand or statistically and conclude that any producer thinks they have much pricing power.

The first-hand evidence? Just check the ads in your daily newspaper. Or take a look at this post from about a year ago offering tips to appliance shoppers. For example, consumers are told that: 

>in-store sales people and on-line shopping sites will often sell a machine for less (and “sometimes a lot less” than the advertised price;

>”If you’ve had your eye on an appliance but wish it were just a smidgen cheaper, try putting it in your cart. Then walk away (so to speak). If you leave it there for a few days, a retailer might send you a coupon to entice you to close the deal.”

>”Never be afraid to ask salespeople, cashiers, and store managers if they can do a little better on the price. In fact, Consumer Reports says that nearly all people who haggle over appliances are successful at least once—and save an average $200.”

The statistics? They mock even more cruelly the idea that the tariffs will drive washing machine prices up. Let’s start off with the Federal Reserve’s favorite measure of inflation, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. And as the broadest gauge, let’s use the “core” PCE numbers, which strip out food and energy prices because they’re considered volatile for reasons having little to do with the main determinants of price changes for the rest of the economy.

According to the Commerce Department, which tracks this data, between 2009 (when the current U.S. economic recovery began) and 2016 (the latest figures), core PCE rose by a cumulative 13.10 percent. But for durable goods (the category containing home appliances), prices during this period fell by 13.54 percent. And although there are no statistics for washing machines specifically, prices for “household appliances” plunged by 18 percent over those seven years. These trends don’t exactly scream “Pricing power!”

Moreover, let’s look at what happened with appliances prices after 2013, when the Obama administration imposed tariffs on subsidized and dumped South Korean-brand washing machines from South Korea and Mexico. After having fallen by 2.39 percent the previous year, they fell even faster – by 5.61 percent, 4.96 percent, and 5.03 percent annually over the next three years. And in each instance, the rate of decrease for appliance prices was much steeper than for prices for other durable goods.

The Labor Department’s different sets of inflation data do extend through 2017. They’re grouped under the heading “consumer price index” (CPI), and show that prices for major appliances decreased that year by 2.57 percent, and for appliances generally by 1.03 percent. That year, the CPI for urban consumers less food, energy, and shelter rose by 0.72 percent.  And according to this CPI, appliance and major appliance prices have been falling throughout the current recovery, too.  

There’s a first time for everything, and so it’s possible that Korean washing machine manufacturers really will carry through on their price increase vows. And of course, since it’s their business, they may know something I don’t. But the first-hand evidence and the data strongly indicate that the tariffs will simply require them to charge closer to fair market value for their goods, and that until much stronger pricing pressures emerge, this fair market value will remain pretty low and could well keep falling.

As a result, there’s a heavy burden of proof not only for taking them at their word, but for continuing to accept blithely the standard assumption that tariffs always hit consumers hardest – or will at all.

Following Up: A Big China-Related National Security Hole May Get Plugged, and Trade Derangement Syndrome Keeps Spreading

Tags

CFIUS, China, Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, consumers, East Asia-Pacific, Following Up, foreign direct investment, LG Electronics, manufacturing, Samsung, South Carolina, tariffs, technology, Tennessee, Trade, washing machines

Yesterday alone produced a news item that provides important grounds for hope that America’s policy toward China might finally be getting coherent, and one that shows that Mainstream Media coverage of international trade issues remains almost determinedly brain-dead. And conveniently, both items concern developments recently reported on by RealityChek.

The first came in The Wall Street Journal, and describes some important new provisions in legislation proceeding through Congress that would update the federal government’s standards for approving or blocking prospective foreign proposals to take over U.S. businesses with defense-related implications. The current process for screening such investment enables Washington to nix (and this is just an obvious hypothetical example) a Russian or Chinese proposal to buy a company that makes jet fighter craft.

Most cases examined by the inter-agency group that makes recommendations to the President for final action (the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS) aren’t such easy calls, which is precisely why lawmakers seem determined to expand the grounds for blocking potentially dangerous takeovers. That’s an idea I’ve long favored.

But at least as important is a provision in the bill that addresses a problem I’ve written on, but that Washington has been slow to recognize – even under the Trump administration. That’s the growing tendency of American technology companies to share their best knowhow with partners in places like China. In some cases, the U.S. firms voluntarily hand over the keys to these kingdoms. In others, they invest capital in Chinese start-ups and other ventures.

It’s true that the United States maintains a system for controlling exports of national security-related technology to problematic countries like China. But the proliferation of these corporate transfers and investments makes clear it’s too sieve-like. And plugging holes is particularly important now because China has so aggressively challenged America’s position as the lead power in the economically vibrant East Asia-Pacific region.

I’ve long opposed the U.S. strategy of maintaining major military forces in this far-off area decades after the Cold War’s end in order to fend off the Chinese and North Koreans. But if American leaders stay determined to ignore my advice (!), it’s nonsensical to keep pushing for bigger and bigger military budgets and stronger forces (in part to buttress its East Asia strategy) while allowing American companies in effect to help China strengthen the military against which Americans may fight. So let’s hope Congress sends a CFIUS reform bill to President Trump’s desk tout de suite.

The second, more dispiriting news item came from Reuters, and dealt with those tariffs Mr. Trump last week imposed on certain imported washing machines from South Korea. As I wrote on January 24, these actions seemed to infect officials in South Carolina with a case of Trade Derangement Syndrome – the utter mindlessness produced by announcements or fears of even small-scale restrictions on trade flows. In this case, South Carolina officials were criticizing the tariff decision even though it undoubtedly led one South Korean manufacturer – Samsung – to announce that it would begin producing washing machines in the Palmetto State, thereby avoiding the tariffs and creating hundreds of jobs for South Carolinians.

Yesterday, Reuters reported similarly looney reactions on the part of the other South Korean company fingered – LG Electronics. LG, too, clearly has been convinced by the prospect of tariffs to manufacture some of its products in the United States – in this case, in Tennessee. But the company clearly is not thrilled with the prospect. It’s grousing that, because of the tariffs, it will need to raise the prices it charges American consumers.

That’s pretty par for the course – though has anyone who’s bought a major appliance lately seen many producers or retailers that are full of confidence that they can charge more? But what was completely doofy was what the company spokesperson quoted by Reuters reporter David Lawder (with a figurative straight face) said next. He fretted that the price increase could cost the company market share, therefore reducing the demand for the new Tennessee factory’s products and for local workers. And then he noted that the costs could be long-lasting: “If you lose floor space at retail, it can take years to get it back.”

I don’t blame the LG spokesperson for trying to drum up American opposition to the tariffs any way possible. But maybe Lawder could have asked him why on earth the company would take actions that it’s admitting would lose it money – for “years”? Or pointed out that these adverse consequences do a great job of explaining why LG is not remotely likely to raise prices? Instead, Lawder simply permitted the LG flack to get away with arrant nonsense – and reinforced my claim that nothing, but nothing, is as badly, and as tendentiously covered by the media as anything having to do with international trade.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trade Derangement Syndrome

Tags

American Enterprise Institute, consumers, establishment, Henry McMaster, Mark J. Perry, Samsung, solar panels, South Carolina, South Korea, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The immediate aftermath of the Trump administration announcement of tariffs on imports of foreign government-subsidized solar panels and modules and washing machines once again made clear that such developments trigger among the silliest comments heard in the economics world. Let’s call this behavior “Trade Derangement Syndrome.”

Exhibit One: Several South Carolina politicians, including Governor Henry McMaster, expressed agreement with Samsung, one of the South Korean companies hit with the washing machine tariffs, that the duties “are a great loss for American consumers and workers.” The consumers part is understandable – though not very credible unless you believe that it’s easy for companies to raise prices significantly in current and foreseeable U.S. economic conditions. But the workers part is completely off the wall.

After all, Samsung is now completing construction of a washing machine factory in the Palmetto State. Further, the company has admitted that the likelihood of the tariffs led it to begin producing in the United States. One of its senior executive American executives, John Herrington, stated earlier this month that, “Because we are committed to supplying the U.S. market from Newberry [South Carolina], no [tariff] remedy is necessary,” Locating the new factory in South Carolina was a separate decision, but Samsung’s rationale couldn’t be more clear. Ditto for the win for South Carolina and its economy.

So what’s with the state’s complaints? According to Herrington, although Samsung intends to supply most of its U.S. needs from the South Carolina facility, “We can’t supply all of those needs immediately in January. We will need to import washers so that we can supply a full range of products to our retailers and consumers during the ramp-up period.

“If we are unable to offer our full range of products to retailers and consumers, we will lose floor space and sales, impacting the success of our South Carolina operation. So the ultimate impact of the proposed tariff is a lose-lose scenario for U.S. production, U.S. employers and U.S. consumers.”

But this explanation makes absolutely no sense – unless you believe that Samsung will cut production even after the factory is running full tilt, and even permanently. What doubtless will happen is that the company will keep importing some products until that point; due to the tariffs, it will absorb lower profits in the process; and then they’ll be restored as the ramp up is completed.

So either the state’s politicians are completely ignorant about manufacturing realities, or they’ve decided that their bottom line is serving as Samsung spokespersons – not promoting South Carolina’s economic fortunes. I.e., maybe they’re not really deranged after all?

The second example of tariff derangement syndrome comes from American Enterprise Institute economist Mark J. Perry. In a post yesterday on the think tank’s blog, Perry blasted the Trump tariffs as an example of the administration’s “American Consumers Last” trade policy. That’s entirely reasonable.

What was entirely goofy was Perry’s claim that the “voice of the American consumer” has been “unheard” as the administration considered the solar and washing machine cases. Can anyone doubt that that’s been a major argument made by the plethora of politicians, lobbyists, academics, think tankers, and editorial writers who opposed the tariffs?

It’s probable that what’s thrown Perry’s compass off is not the absence of pro-consumer arguments in the trade policy debate, but the fact that the President’s decisions could indicate that a multi-decade period of overwhelmingly and singlemindedly pro-consumer American trade policies is ending. If that’s the case, then expect ever greater disorientation in establishment ranks. But what a negligible price to pay for restoring reasonable balance to the nation’s approach to the global economy.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Can We Get Real About China’s Trade Dumping?

Tags

China, consumers, dumping, free markets, Martin Feldstein, prices, steel, subsidies, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

In the spirit of the holiday season, rather than slam noted economist Martin Feldstein for producing yet another stale though dangerously misleading blanket warning against the horrors of trade protectionism, I’ll note that he’s just (unwittingly, to be sure) created a teachable moment about instances in which erecting trade barriers is absolutely necessary. Those instances concern a practice called dumping, and in particular when the culprit is a country like China.

In U.S. and world trade law, dumping consists of selling a product or service in a foreign market at prices deemed to be excessively low. (Their specific definitions differ – see here and here for how.) For someone not steeped in these subjects, it’s entirely reasonable to ask, “What’s the problem?” After all, if a producer wants to provide a major price break for his or her foreign customers, why should those customers look a gift horse in the mouth? But for a leading economic light like Feldstein – who has been a top presidential economic adviser (in the Reagan years), it’s hard to excuse his use of the term.

The reason is that the decision to dump can result from dramatically different circumstances with dramatically different stakes for the future of the kind of U.S. economy most of us presumably want to ensure. Feldstein suggests that dumping is basically no different from the kind of price drops businesses can put in effect when they’re so technologically advanced or otherwise efficient that they can undersell less competent rivals. But this example is completely irrelevant to dumping law.  Neither the U.S. nor World Trade Organization versions penalizes this kind of progress.

Feldstein might have added a common claim that, even when these international price differentials do exist, they’re no different than when producers (or service providers) decide to put their wares on sale in certain parts of the United States but not others – maybe as a special deal to jump-start business in a region they’re entering, or to energize business in a region where they’re lagging.

But although this argument against sanctioning foreign producers for dumping is more on target, it still misses the mark in a crucial respect: The dumping engaged in by countries like China is fundamentally different. And the reason is that it’s typically subsidized by foreign governments.

Such subsidized dumping is objectionable, and downright dangerous to the American economy, for several reasons that have somehow eluded Feldstein – and most of his fellow economists. Principally, it forces companies that operate in a free market setting, with all the constraints that imposes on pricing policies, to compete against companies that face no such constraints – or tend to enjoy the freedom to under-price for long periods of time.

If you’re fine (like Feldstein and other conventional wisdom-mongers?) with government-dependent entities (I hesitate to call them “businesses”) gaining the upper hand in the United States, then logically this isn’t a problem. If you believe that the American economy works best for all concerned when free market principles and practices are encouraged to the greatest extent possible, then you should be deeply concerned.

As a result, it should be easy to distinguish between bargain-basement pricing from companies that have either very patient founders or other shareholders, or lots of cash on their balance sheets, or both, from such pricing from entities that can keep drawing on foreign treasuries. The former, after all, stems from actors that are trying to judge the fundamentals of a market place, that “put their money where their mouths are,” and who will eventually be rewarded for being correct or punished for getting it wrong. The latter is a function of the decisions and priorities of foreign governments. And with a country like China, where the government maintains a whip hand over the economy, there can be no reasonable doubt which kind of pricing we’re dealing with.

All believers in free markets by definition agree on the superiority of the free market incentive system. But as often seems to be the case, they easily forget free market values, and the need to safeguard them, when it comes to international trade. (Monopoly and competition issues represent another example of this selective capitalism syndrome.)

That’s not to say that all government subsidies should be opposed. Many (like America’s minority- and women-owned business “set asides”) seek to promote important goals that societies have every right to prize. Others seek to promote important goals that societies literally can’t do without (like government support for defense industries). And even these wrinkles can have wrinkles. For example, many manufactured goods can be crucial for national defense even though they’re not weapons themselves, or even though they have many uses other than military. Steel, to which the Trump administration is considering extending major protection for just these reasons, is a newsy example.

So many dumping allegations and cases can be genuinely complicated, and understandably controversial. But even if you believe that systems of trade law can ultimately resolve these disputes in acceptable ways (I don’t), it should be clear that government-fostered dumping simply doesn’t belong in this category, and that government-run economies like China’s don’t deserve the standard legal protections (like presumption of innocence) when put in the dock.

What should be even clearer: Anyone not recognizing this basic dumping distinction should never gain the ear of those officially responsible for America’s well-being. But because it’s the holiday season, I won’t specifically recommend blackballing Martin Feldstein. At least not right now.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Evidence of Germany’s Stealth Protectionism

Tags

Angela Merkel, consumers, consumption, developing countries, Financial Times, Germany, Global Imbalances, globalization, imports, Matthew C. Klein, protectionism, savings, taxes, Trade, Trump, value-added taxes, VATs, wage suppression, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

President Trump’s charges that the United States has signed terrible trade deals in recent decades, and that foreign economies have been the main beneficiaries, inevitably have triggered a potentially useful debate over which major countries are most open to trade and which are tightly closed. Unfortunately, such arguments won’t actually be useful until “open” and “closed” are properly defined, and a new Financial Times column on Germany’s economic policies nicely illustrates how remote that goal remains.

I’ve previously made the case that accurately measuring protectionism – and thus accurately gauging which countries are contributing adequately to global prosperity and which are free-riding – entails much more than adding up individual trade barriers. Such simple counts also mislead on the equally important question of which countries the United States can reasonably hope to trade with for mutual benefit, and which countries can’t possibly qualify.

And because Germany’s government has both taken trade fire from Mr. Trump and vigorously replied, I’ve used it to illustrate the above points. In a short op-ed for USA Today and a much more detailed RealityChek post, I’ve noted that, as with many other leading foreign economies, the main problem with Germany as a promising trade partner stems at least as much from its overall national economic strategy as from its specific trade practices. That is, countries like Germany, which heavily emphasize growing by saving, producing, and exporting, can’t possibly be good trade matches for countries like the United States, whose priorities have been the diametric opposites.

Of course, those national economic strategies manifest themselves in specific practices and policies. (How else could their focus be established?) But the links to trade flows aren’t always clear. For example, there’s widespread reluctance to acknowledge the trade impact of value-added taxes (VATs), which promote exports and penalize imports. The role played by other German policies, like suppressing wages or skimping on infrastructure spending, has been even less apparent.

What the new Financial Times post adds to the mix is a generally neglected form of wage suppression: Germany’s taxes on low-wage workers – which author Matthew C. Klein describes as “among the highest in the world” since at least the turn of the century.

These taxes inflict an outsized blow on Germany’s imports – and on the the world economy as a whole – in at least two important respects. First, economists tend to agree that the lower an individual’s or household’s income, the higher the share of that income will be spent (as opposed to saved). If they’re right, then these taxes ave been hitting Germany’s overall consumption and import levels especially hard. Therefore, these levies look like notable contributors to the bloated German trade and current account surpluses that are not only detrimental to America, but that could threaten the entire world’s financial stability.

Second, as supporters of pre-Trump U.S. trade policies constantly point out, much of what low-income consumers buy is produced and exported by low-income countries (e.g., apparel or school supplies or furniture). So since high taxes on low-wage workers in Germany prevent them from importing as much from the developing world as they could, third world countries need to focus more on customers in more promising markets – like America’s.

Germany and its leader Angela Merkel lately have been basking in the glow of praise from the political classes in the United States and abroad, which have anointed them as among the new, post-Trump champions of free trade and all its purported benefits. (China’s another alleged globalization champion, but that’s another story.) Its lofty taxes on low-wage workers add to the evidence that these titles are wildly premature.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Smart Phones, Dumb Economy?

Tags

cell phones, consumers, credit, CreditSesame.com, debt, deflation, inflation, Maria Lamagna, Marketwatch.com, millennials, smartphones, telecommunications services, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I’m always wary of drawing conclusions about the American economy from what I see in everyday life for reasons that should be obvious. All such anecdotes should be viewed suspiciously because individual observations or incidents are much more likely to result from randomness or unique circumstances than to reflect a genuine trend. And I’d be the last to claim that my own experiences have ever been representative of anything larger.

Still, it’s undeniably, and understandably, gratifying when some actual data seems to bear out something that’s had me (figuratively) scratching my head for some time. It’s the seeming tendency of folks who at least appear to be well into the lower depths of the “99 percent” of non-uber-wealthy Americans owning what look (to my admittedly non-expert eye) like state-of-the-art smartphones. Although all sorts of reasonable explanations are possible, a recent survey of consumer finances at least has supported my suspicion that something genuinely peculiar – and not so encouraging – really is going on here.

First, let’s examine some of the extenuating circumstances. Prices for smartphone services have been falling steadily – and steeply over the last few months, thanks largely to the spread of unlimited data plans. Just check out this chart:

Younger consumers in particular also have shown some tendency to value buying experiences (like the extraordinary connectivity provided by modern personal communications) over goods. Some of these millennials and others in the post-baby-boom categories (especially students) may be getting help from their families – and that doesn’t necessarily raise red flags. More disturbing, however, are the odds that many of the young are avoiding or deferring goods purchases (especially big ones they used to make in the twenties and thirties, like cars and homes) because they simply can’t afford them, and are therefore substituting relatively cheap indulgences like phones with every conceivable bell and whistle.

Nonetheless, that consumer finance survey – from the Credit Sesame website – sadly suggests that many low-income earners who use smartphones of some kind (it’s not possible to say that they’re the latest and greatest) literally can’t afford them. Instead, they’ve bought them with seriously over-extended credit.

According to Marketwatch.com reporter Maria LaMagna, Credit Sesame examined the finances of 5,000 consumers and found that those whose cell phone accounts are considered delinquent were carrying an average balance of $887. I couldn’t find any information about what percentage of the 5,000 consumers analyzed were carrying such cell phone debt, but here’s a reason to think that the share carrying significant amounts is pretty big: phone service companies don’t usually report customers’ payments histories to credit bureaus until the collections process formally begins. I also wish that the article indicated how credit card-related debt has changed over time.

But it’s hard to believe that a reputable site like Marketwatch would have reported these numbers had they been more the exception than the rule. And the amounts of cell phone-related debt are especially striking given how services are now cratering in price.

It’s entirely possible that cell phone debtors will take advantage of these price plunges to pay up and stay fully paid up. In principle, the companies could start cracking down, too. But there’s also a real chance that the debtors will simply start paying their minimums on time, and that the service companies – currently engaged in price wars determined to get and keep customers practically at all costs – will keep treating them leniently (and milking them as cash cows for as long as they can). Raise your hands if you think this is any way to run an economy for any serious length of time.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Let’s Get Real About Tariffs and Consumer Prices

Tags

Arthur Taylor, automotive, Black Dog Manufacturing, Carlos Ghosn, consumers, economists, Fox Business, Maria Bartiromo, markets, Mitsubishi, Nissan, prices, Renault, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Surely the most politically powerful argument against any American trade policies that involve tariff-ing imports holds that such moves will raise the prices consumers pay for goods and services directly and indirectly, imported and U.S.-made alike. That’s why the claim is made constantly both by domestic interests who favor the trade status quo (like offshoring-happy multinationals and retailers), and by American trade partners whose growth heavily depends on exporting to the United States. And let’s not forget most of the world’s economists. 

But now an admission has just come from a major multinational manufacturer that the real pricing impact of tariffs would surely be much less dramatic – to say the least.

The source is no less than Carlos Ghosn, who chairs both Japan’s Mitsubishi Motors and Nissan Motor Co., as well as France’s Renault. On a Fox Business program last Friday, Ghosn expressed his expectation that the global automotive sector would “adjust” to any new trade restrictions put in place by President Trump.

That’s not terribly newsworthy. After all, per the tariff critics, that could simply mean that Ghosn’s companies will raise consumer prices in order to compensate. Nor, given the corporate rush to curry favor with Mr. Trump, was it particularly newsworthy that Ghosn told anchor Maria Bartiromo that “All car makers today are paying attention to what the president is saying” (his words) and that “companies are looking at adding capacity and hiring more workers in the U.S. as a result of Trump’s plans” (as an accompanying Fox Business post put it).

What was terribly newsworthy was Ghosn’s prediction that “I don’t think anybody can sit comfortably with a price hike.” In other words, the head of an enormous worldwide automotive “alliance” has just made clear that new tariffs probably won’t lead to higher consumer prices – at least not on any sustained basis.

Ghosn didn’t specify why the industry would likely hold the line, but leading reasons aren’t tough to imagine. In particular, the U.S. automotive playing field would remain filled with players and therefore highly competitive, and American consumers these days don’t have access to infinite amounts of money, either in the form of paychecks or credit. If he’s right, then there’s no reason to suspect that these limits on pricing power are restricted to the auto industry.

Another business voice has just offered some other insights into why automatic price hikes can’t be assumed to result from tariff hikes. Arthur Taylor founded and runs Black Dog Manufacturing in Hyde Park, Utah, a producer of custom wood and metal fixtures and other products used by retailers and other vendors in malls and stores. He’s also one of the sharpest observers of the globalization and manufacturing scene I’ve met.

As Taylor reminded me in a Facebook message over the weekend, automatic price hikes can’t be assumed after tariffs because, contrary to what’s apparently believed by most economists (and argued by those business and other interests with big stakes in preserving the trade status quo), there is no pat formula businesses employ to determine the prices they charge. More specifically, they don’t use any of their costs – whether of labor, or of any domestic or foreign inputs – in any predetermined way to calculate what they charge to customers (whether individual consumers or other businesses).

Instead, “price is determined by what the buyer will pay and in business, the majority of our efforts are dedicated to getting the highest price we can for the volume we’ll accept.” In this vein, “Businesses always start with ‘how much can we get for this?’”

Of course, costs always factor significantly into pricing decisions. But they generally are not seen or treated by producers as considerations that either justify giving customers a break when they are low or falling, or entitle them to pass-throughs when they are high or rising. Rather, sellers make judgments about what buyers will pay. If necessary, they try to make the adjustments needed to produce revenues and profits that they and/or their investors consider acceptable. If their performance is unsatisfactory, sellers either try to make further changes in pricing or production techniques, or in their sales and promotional efforts; or they modify their revenue and profit expectations; or they conclude that their business is not viable and abandon the venture.

In other words, prices are produced by the functioning of an ultimately psychological system of value identification by both buyers and sellers that’s called a market. And one of the key elements of value identification for a seller has always been what a market will bear. Executives like Ghosn and Taylor recognize markets’ complexity and subjectivity, as well as their inescapability (that is, if markets are indeed viewed as the best basis for organizing economic activity).  Is it too much to ask that economists – and the politicians, journalists, and think tank hacks they influence – develop and/or purvey equally realistic views?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: About that American Shopping Revolution….

Tags

consumer spending, consumers, consumption, goods, Great Recession, holiday shopping, hotels, recreation, restaurants, services, shopping, spending, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The final figures for the last holiday shopping season are in, and they seem to confirm a trend that students of the retail industry – and lots of retailers themselves – claim is becoming dominant: Shoppers are spending more and more of their dollars on services – especially those that offer “experiences” – and fewer and fewer on goods.

This Washington Post article handily sums up the evidence – both the data and the views of various retail executives and consultants. Even more telling, it describes the very substantial store closings recently announced by like companies like Macys. Nonetheless, if you look at the U.S. government figures on how Americans spend their money (as opposed to what’s sold by stores), the only significant increase visible in that “experience” spending has come over the last year. And so far, there’s no sign that it’s come at the expense of goods purchases.

The spending figures are found on the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis website, and they’re not only broader than the retail sales numbers (which are kept at the separate Census.gov). They also come adjusted for inflation. They show that, through the third quarter of this year, spending on restaurants and hotels and other forms of accommodation rose by more in real terms (4.45 percent) than overall after-inflation personal consumption (3.15 percent). But spending on “recreation” was up only 1.49 percent. And purchases of goods increased a relatively healthy 3.91 percent – also considerably faster than purchases as a whole.

But maybe the shopping priorities shift only becomes apparent if you look at the entire economic recovery? Not according to these statistics. Since the last recession ended in mid-2009, restaurant and hotel spending has risen by 17.45 percent in real terms – faster than the advance in total personal consumption (14.85 percent). But recreation services spending has increased by only 12.76 percent. And real consumption of goods beat them both – up 23.21 percent.

Nor is there much reason to think that the Great Recession ushered in big change in American consuming away from goods. If anything, quite the opposite. Since it began, in December, 2007, all real personal spending has risen by 11.71 percent, with goods spending leading the way with an increase of 14.94 percent. Restaurant and hotel spending is higher by just 10.54 percent – barely better than the increase in after-inflation overall services spending of 10.17 percent. The figures for recreation services? A mere 7.28 percent improvement.

And revealingly, the growth disparity between goods and the other spending categories is wider still since the start of the century. Between 2000 and 2014 (the last full-year data available), adjusting for inflation, restaurant and hotel spending increased by 25.51 percent, recreation spending by 27.67 percent, while goods spending jumped by 44.16 percent. The goods rise was also much faster than that for services overall (27.60 percent).

These numbers, in fact, challenge not only the claims about changing shopping tastes in the United States. They challenge claims about the entire economy being dominated by services. It turns out that that’s mainly true on the production side – where measured by real value-added (a different but comparable gauge) inflation-adjusted services output was up 31.87 percent between 2000 and 2014. That’s nearly three times faster than the real goods production increase of 10.98 percent. That is, Americans still buy huge and smartly growing quantities of goods. But more and more of them come from abroad.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Has the Fed Gotten Savings Incentives Completely Wrong?

Tags

Baby Boomers, banks, consumers, debt, deposit rates, federal funds rate, Federal Reserve, finance, Financial Crisis, housing, incomes, interest rates, recession, retirees, savings, savings rate, seniors, spending, The Economist, zero interest rate policy, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As many of you may know, the Federal Reserve yesterday raised the interest rate it directly controls above an effective zero level for the first time in seven years. So it’s especially interesting and important that a post from The Economist just before the rate hike made a strong case that one of the main rationales for keeping interest rates so low has backfired big-time on ordinary Americans and on the consumer spending still driving most U.S. economic activity.

Just after the height of the financial crisis, the Fed lowered its so-called funds rate to zero (actually, it was a range of zero to 0.25 percent) in part to make sure that the carnage that was spreading from housing to Wall Street and increasingly to the rest of the economy wouldn’t scare households into closing their wallets,and therefore choke off even more growth. The federal funds rate doesn’t directly set consumer borrowing rates – it’s the rate offered by the central bank to the country’s biggest banks. But the Fed was hoping that super-easy money would have twin stimulative effects.

First, when these banks’ borrowing costs fall, they can offer cheaper loans to both consumer and business borrowers and stay just as profitable. And the more affordable credit becomes, the more borrowers were expected to use. Second, the Fed was hoping that super-low rates would penalize saving. A rock-bottom federal funds rate would drive way down the returns on such popular consumer savings vehicles as money market funds and certificates of deposit and savings bonds, and convince Americans that they were better off spending existing savings and incoming income rather than receive literally no reward for thriftiness.

The Economist, though, has argued that the Fed’s penalize-savings strategy was misbegotten. And it looks like it should have been obvious even then. As the magazine points out, the biggest reason Americans save is to ensure a comfortable retirement. For any retirees or those nearing that age who already have substantial savings, even very low-yielding assets can together spin off enough income to ensure the golden years living standards they want.

But then ask yourselves how many Americans were in this situation when the financial crisis and recession struck. Inflation-adjusted incomes for the typical household had been stagnating. Thrift became a forgotten virtue; in part because of those stagnant incomes and in part because perpetually rising home values were hyped as an acceptable substitute, the nation’s personal savings rate hit historic lows and in fact briefly fell below zero. Then, of course, home values began cratering and the stock market went into free fall. So safe but low-yielding assets looked like the only viable savings game in town.

Unfortunately, the lower the return, the bigger the pot needed to guarantee that comfortable retirement. As a result, more and more of the aging American population has felt greater and greater pressure to salt away any new income not needed to cover ongoing living expenses.

Nor do you need to take The Economist‘s analysis on faith. For nothing has been clearer during this weak economic recovery than the continued consumer caution so responsible for holding it back. Many analysts attribute this behavior to a simple – possibly excessive – “once burned-twice shy” fear. But The Economist‘s treatment at least points to another important factor: For Americans with stagnant incomes and meager liquid savings – along with continuing debt – returning to pre-crisis and recession-level spending simply hasn’t been an option. In fact, evidence is accumulating that growing numbers of seniors, including recently retired baby boomers, are feeling these pressures, too – especially on the debt front.

Not that the Fed’s quarter-point rate hike will change matters much. In fact, signs haven’t even appeared yet that it’s a step in the right direction, as those banks that have raised the rates they’re charging for borrowers haven’t raised those that they’re paying to depositors. Until rates rise high enough to reward savings significantly again, most Americans will have ample reason to view recent Fed policies as lose-lose propositions.