(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How to Really Make Trade Fair

Tags

automotive, BBB, Biden administration, bubbles, Build Back Better, Canada, consumption, Donald Trump, electric vehicles, EVs, fossil fuels, manufacturing, Mexico, NAFTA, North America, production, tax breaks, Trade, U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, {What's Left of) Our Economy

There’s no doubt that the next few weeks will see a spate of (low-profile) news articles on how unhappy Canada and Mexico are about proposed new U.S. tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles (EVs) and how these measures could trigger a major new international trade dispute.

There’s also no doubt that any such disputes could be quickly resolved, and legitimate U.S. interests safeguarded, if only Washington would finally start basing U.S. trade policy on economic fundamentals and facts on the ground rather than on the abstract and downright childishly rigid notions of fairness that excessively influenced the approach taken by Donald Trump’s presidency.

The Canadian and Mexican complaints concern a provision in the Biden administration’s Build Back Better (BBB) bill that’s been passed by the House of Representatives but is stuck so far in the Senate. In order to encourage more EV sales, and help speed a transition away from fossil fuel use for climate change reasons, the latest version of BBB would award a refundable tax break of up to $12,500 for most purchases of these vehicles.

The idea is controversial because the administration and other BBB supporters see these rebates as a great opportunity to promote EV production and jobs in the United State by reserving his subsidy for vehicles Made in America. (As you’ll see here, the actual proposed rules get more complicated still – and could change some more.) And according to Canada and Mexico, this arrangement also violates the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA) governing North American trade that replaced the old NAFTA during the Trump years in July, 2020.

Because USMCA largely reflects those prevailing concepts of global economic equity, Canada and Mexico probably have a strong case. But that’s only because this framework continues classifying all countries signing a trade agreement as economic equals. Even worse, there’s no better illustration of this position’s absurdity is the economy of North America.

After all, the United States has always accounted for vast majority of the continent’s total economic output and therefore market for traded goods. According for the latest (2020) World Bank figures, the the United States turned out 87.51 percent of North America’s gross product adjusted for inflation. And when it comes to new car and light truck sales, the U.S. share was 84.24 percent in 2019 (the last full pre-pandemic year, measured by units, and as calculated from here, here, and here).

But in 2019, the United States produced only 68.88 percent of all light vehicles made in North America (also measured by units and calculated from here, here, and here.) Moreover, more than 70 percent of all vehicles manufactured in Mexico were exported to the United States according to the latest U.S. government figures. And for Canada, the most recent data pegs this share at just under 54 percent (based on and calculated from here and here).

What this means is that, without the American market, there probably wouldn’t even be any Canadian and Mexican auto industries at all. They simply wouldn’t have enough customers to reach and maintain the production scale needed to make any economic sense.

So real fairness, stemming from the nature of the North American economy and the North American motor vehicle industry, leads to an obvious solution: Give vehicles from Canada and Mexico shares of the EV tax credits that match their shares of the continent’s light vehicle sales – just under 16 percent.

Therefore, using, say, 2019 as a baseline, from now on, the first just-under-16 percent of their combined light vehicle exports to the United States would be eligible for the credits for each successive year, and the rest would need to be offered at each manufacturer’s full price (a pretty plastic notion in the auto industry, I know, but a decision that would need to be left to whatever the manufacturers choose).

Nothing in this decision would force Canada or Mexico to subject themselves to these requirements; they would remain, as they always have been, completely free to try to sell as many EVs as they could to other markets (including each other’s).

What would change dramatically, though, is a situation that’s needlessly harmed the productive heart of the U.S. economy for far too long, resulting from trade agreements that lock America into an outsized consuming and importing role, but an undersized production and exporting role. In other words, what would change dramatically is a strategy bearing heavy responsibility for addicting the nation to bubble-ized growth. And forgive me for not being impressed by whatever legalistic arguments Mexico, Canada, any other country, or the global economics and trade policy establishments, are sure to raise in objection.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why the U.S. Still Holds the Winning Economic Cards Versus China

Tags

Biden, CCP, China, Chinese Communist Party, CNBC.com, consumers, consumption, demographics, Donald Trump, export-led growth, gross domestic product, IMF, International Monetary Fund, per capita GDP, population, technology, Trade, trade wars, workforce, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since there seems to be no end in sight to the rise in U.S.-China tensions, it’s especially interesting that two analyses of the Chinese economy and its future that challenge some widely held views on the subject have just appeared. Also noteworthy: They matter greatly for America’s perceived prospects for success, and one of them comes from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) itself.

More important still:  When you put them both together, the implications look positively startling – and encouraging – for America’s prospects in its economic and technological struggle with the People’s Republic.

The first apparently contrarian information comes from the International Monetary Fund in the form of this chart.

It shows recent and projected trends in U.S. and Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) per capita – that is, how much economic output each country turns out adjusted for population. This statistic is a valuable gauge of economic power and affluence because it reveals which national economies (or the economies of any other political unit) are a certain size simply because their populations are a certain size (big or small), and which economies are doing a particularly good or bad job generating goods and services given how many people are doing the producing.

For example: Let’s say you have one economy with a population of 100 and one with a population of 10,000, and the latter generates twice as much economic output than the former. The more populous country would have the larger economy in absolute terms, but its performance wouldn’t be seen as especially impressive because it took so many people to achieve this result – and indeed orders of magnitude more people than the smaller population economy.

Moreover, the latter economy would have much less wealth to distribute among its own people than the former, and therefore each of its citizens would be a good deal poorer than their counterparts in the smaller economy all else being equal.

But let’s not dismiss the bigger economy’s record altogether. For if the two ever fought a war – all else equal again – the bigger economy would have much more in the way of resources to build and equip a military, and keep it fighting, than the smaller.

Throughout modern history, the U.S. economy has greatly exceeded China’s by both measures, but because of the amazing progress made in recent decades by the People’s Republic and a slowdown in U.S. growth, China has been able to close the gap in terms of the size of the two economies. In fact, many forecasters (as made clear in the CNBC.com post containing the chart), believe that the Chinese will catch up before too long. As indicated above, the implications are sobering for Americans if the two countries come to blows, and by extension for any diplomatic jockeying they engage in – for relative military power always casts a political shadow.

China’s overall catch up has been so fast that you might think that the per capita GDP gap that’s been so large because China’s population has been so much bigger than America’s might start narrowing, too. But the chart makes clear that this hasn’t been the case at all. Indeed, the gap has continued to widen, and is projected to keep widening at least for the next four years.

And this finding and prediction suggests that the unquestionable surge in living standards that China has been able to foster due to its rapid growth – which has led so many U.S. and other non-Chinese businesses to pin their future hopes largely on selling to this huge and supposedly ever-burgeoning market – won’t even come close to American living standards for many years. So if the chart is right, the purchasing power growth of the typical Chinese will stall out at pretty low levels and disappoint many of these corporate hopes.

As a result, fears that a thorough “decoupling” of the two economies resulting mainly from U.S. concerns about over-dependence on an increasingly hostile country will kneecap many U.S.-based businesses and possibly the entire American economy could be seriously overblown, at least longer term. For if the chart is right, these expectations will be revealed as unrealistic no matter what course Washington follows – and even if China displayed any willingness (which it hasn’t) to permit foreign businesses to make any more inroads into its economy than are absolutely necessary.  (See here for the latest – and an unsually explicit – official Chinese designation of “complete” economic self-reliance as a goal.)  

All of which brings us to the second contrarian take on China that’s been expressed recently – and by the Communist Party. It’s a finding from the Deputy Director of a party-run research institute that the country’s “Consumption has already past the phase of rapid increase and will only rise slowly in the future.” And his opinion deserves big-time credibility because he clearly believed that he could express such a downbeat view without getting his head chopped off, or being sent for a few decades to a reeducation camp, or risking punishment for any immediate family and relatives.

In addition, however, Xu cited two specific, interlocking reasons for this judgement: an aging population and a shrinking workforce.  And although he seemingly didn’t mention this, if China will need to temper its plans to generate more economic growth through its own domestic consumption, it will need not only to rely more on the kinds of infrastructure investment he did cite.  It will also need to keep relying heavily on exports – which should ensure that the United States will retain plenty of leverage over the People’s Republic with its tariffs as long as the Biden administration decides to leave them in place. 

None of this means that former President Trump was right in claiming that trade wars are “easy to win,” or that maintaining satisfactory technological superiority will be a piece of cake, either, or that generally the United States can stop worrying so much about China threats on these scores.  But it does mean that if American leaders have the will to prevail – and to advance and safeguard U.S. interests adequately – they’ll have plenty of wallet to use.                                    

 

(What’s Left of Our Economy: The Case for Decoupling from China Just Got Even Stronger

Tags

China, consumption, consumption-led growth, decoupling, domestic demand, double-circulation, export-led growth, exports, Financial Times, Michael Pettis, rebalancing, Reuters, semiconductors, tariffs, The Race to the Bottom, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Double-circulation is all the rage nowadays in China – or at least among its leaders. No, it’s not anything related to treating the CCP Virus and the blood system. It’s the idea that the People’s Republic needs to shift its economic model away from heavy reliance on growing by exporting to dependence on growing by supplying its own commercial entities and especially consumers.

Double-circulation also could well be seized on by supporters of the pre-Trump U.S. trade policy status quo for easing off on the high tariffs on literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods aimed at American markets. After all, if China needs to export less, logically anyway, it will also need to resort less to predatory tactics like intellectual property theft, massive subsidies, and technology extortion to juice these exports – whether they come from Chinese-owned entities or from foreign owned companies selling from China in foreign markets like America’s.

A China more focused on domestic demand might even give a break to foreigners trying to reach Chinese consumers, by giving Chinese households and commercial entities greater choices. But even though this point doesn’t follow as closely, the domestic consumption focus of double circulation could produce more opportunities for foreign producers and service providers anyway simply by putting more money in Chinese consumers’ pockets. If so, double circulation could make the Trump administration’s apparent aim to decouple the United States from China whoppingly self-defeating for American businesses and their workers. 

I haven’t bought the double circulation thesis – and its policy implications in particular – ever since I wrote my book on globalization and the U.S. economy, The Race to the Bottom, back in 2000. So I’m especially pleased to report that my case has just been reenforced by a genuinely excellent authority on the Chinese economy, and by the Chinese regime itself. Even better – these reenforcements also strongly support the apparent Trump administration objective of decoupling America’s economy from China’s.  

Just to be clear: At no time during the last twenty years have I doubted that, on the trajectory it was on, China would become much wealthier, and that the purchasing power of Chinese consumers would rise considerably. Moreover, there was no reason to believe that even the protectionists ruling in Beijing would want to shut imports out of the Chinese economy completely.

But I also had no doubt that, however much more the Chinese would consume in absolute terms, the economy’s export dependence would continue for the foreseeable future simply because Chinese incomes were starting from such meager levels. Therefore, the policy challenges created by the growing integration of the Chinese economy into the U.S. and larger global economies would continue as well – and actually intensify.

The reason? The combination of China’s rock-bottom purchasing power in absolute terms, its ambitious and understandable economic development goals, and its determination to advance them by hook or by crook, would keep confronting America and the world with a country that would long need to produce far more than it could consume in order to keep making economic progress.

For it would take decades at best before China’s population could absorb by itself the output needed to fuel Chinese economic development – or even close. The domestic market simply would remain too small. And since that excess output needed to be bought by someone, it needed to be sold overseas. In fact, Beijing would need to constrain the growth of domestic consumption, since in order to keep churning out the goods needed to power more production, most of the economy’s capital needed to be channeled to producers, not consumers.

And just this past week appeared two items strongly indicating that this analysis has always been and remains on target, and highly relevant to the decoupling debate 

The Chinese economy authority I’m talking about is Michael Pettis – who actually teaches at a Chinese university! In an August 25 Financial Times essay, Pettis made the following key points:

>”Double circulation” is nothing more than a fancy new term for “rebalancing” – and has been an officially proclaimed goal in China “since at least 2007.”

>Almost no progress has been made toward rebalancing: “The consumption share of Chinese GDP remains extraordinarily low, just two percentage points higher in 2019 than it was in 2007. Meanwhile, and not coincidentally, during this period China’s debt-to-GDP ratio doubled.”

>And that progress is largely to blame for China racking up so much debt. After all (and here, I’m reading between Pettis’ lines), since the global financial crisis broke out starting 2007-08, slower U.S. and global growth have tightly limited China’s export opportunities. But since even the country’s iron-fisted dictators couldn’t afford politically to antagonize the population by slowing living standards advances, Beijing needed to borrow on an immense scale, and spend most of this credit on an infrastructure binge that included too many unproductive white elephant projects.

>China’s debts are so big that they’re becoming unsustainable. The best way out – while keeping the population’s income progress reasonably intact – is to reignite exports. But – and here’s where Pettis (who details the problem in a new book) echoes my own analysis in an absolutely striking way – such efforts face a fatal contradiction:

“China’s export competitiveness…depends on ensuring that workers are allocated, whether by wages or the social safety net, a very low share of what they produce. China’s export strength, in other words, depends, at least in part, on the low share workers retain of what they produce.”

At the same time, “China can only rely on domestic consumption to drive a much greater share of growth if workers begin to receive a much higher share of what they produce, so the very process of rebalancing must undermine China’s export competitiveness.”

So putting the issue in the terms I’ve been using, and zeroing in on the policy implications – including hopes for the China market – however much Chinese incomes and purchasing power grow in absolute terms, continued Chinese economic progress still depends on its exports growing considerably faster. As a result, whatever U.S. and other foreign producers as a whole gain in selling goods made in their home countries to Chinese customers, they’re bound to lose more in their domestic markets to Chinese-made products. Of course, any number of individual firms will come out ahead. But their domestic economies consistently will come out behind.

Consequently (and these are my ideas, not Pettis’), whatever short-term disruptions, inefficiencies and therefore weakening of growth and employment take place in the course of pursuing decoupling, this strategy is essential for boosting output and employment in the United States over the longer-term, and for making sure that its own economic progress is sustainable – not to mention the decisive strategic benefits of reducing dependence on China in key industries.

The Chinese government confirmation of these China concerns and ideas of mine appeared in a Wednesday Reuters article on the country’s imports of semiconductors from around the world. The fact that they’re so huge (on a pace to top $300 billion this year for the third straight year, despite the Chinese economy’s partly CCP Virus-induced slowdown) is awfully interesting. So is their rapid growth – up from the $200 billion neighborhood in 2013.

But here’s what’s much more interesting, at least for the U.S. debate on China policy: the statement by the vice-chairman of the China Semiconductor Industry Association that “of the chips that China imported, about half would be exported eventually as they are incorporated into other products.”

It’s interesting and crucially important because it undercuts the claim that U.S.-China decoupling could backfire most of all on the companies relied on by America for so much of its technological competitiveness – the semiconductor companies.

The claim is based on the widespread view that these companies earn much, and in some cases most, of their global revenues in China. (See here for specific numbers.) And that’s indeed what they state in their financial reports.

But as the Chinese semiconductor vice-chairman just made clear, these figures are true only in the narrowest, technical sense. Specifically, when firms like Qualcomm or Intel sell a chip to an electronics company that manufactures or assembles in China, the transaction is recorded as a sale in China whose revenue comes from China.

But since half of the chips used in China go into products for export, it’s clear that in many cases, the end user – the ultimate source of the revenue – isn’t in China at all. It’s elsewhere, including prominently the United States.

Put differently, China isn’t simply, or even mainly, a customer itself for foreign-made, including U.S.-made, semiconductors. It’s largely an assembly location and export platform. It’s true that its electronics industry production base overall is now the world’s largest, that much of its output now consists of information technology products as well as consumer electronics, and that reproducing it elsewhere will take major, protracted effort. But the base itself – including China’s own semiconductor industry – could not have been built without the investments of foreign multinational companies. (See, e.g., here and here.) And if the multinationals can create such an immense complex in China, they can create one elsewhere, too, especially presented with the right policy carrots and sticks.

And by the way, the vice-chairman of the China Semiconductor Industry Association isn’t anything like an official from a typical industry association in a place like the United States. He’s a Chinese government official. So there you have it from the dragon’s mouth.

Neither the Pettis article nor the China semiconductor official’s remarks means that the United States should rush headlong into decoupling. But they do indicate that, particularly over the long-term, this dis-integration exercise will be an economic – as well as a national security – winner for Americans.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trade War(s) Update

Tags

Argentina, Bloomberg.com, Brazil, business investment, China, CNBC, consumption, currency manipulation, debt, Democrats, digital services tax, election 2020, EU, European Union, export controls, Financial Crisis, France, Huawei, internet, investors, manufacturing, production, steel, steel tariffs, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade enforcement, trade war, Trump, Wall Street, Wilbur Ross, Xi JInPing, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The most important takeaway from this post about the current status of U.S. trade policy, especially toward China, is that it may have already been overtaken by events since I began putting these thoughts together yesterday.

What follows is a lightly edited version of talking points I put together for staffers at CNBC in preparation for their interview with me yesterday. I thought this exercise would be useful because these appearances are always so brief (even though this one, unusually, featured me solo), and because sometimes they take unexpected detours from the main subject. .

Before presenting them, however, let’s keep in mind this new Bloomberg piece, which came on the heels of remarks yesterday by President Trump signaling that a trade deal with China may need to await next year’s U.S. Presidential election, and plunged the world’s investors into deep gloom. This morning, however, the news agency reported that considerable progress has been made despite “harsh” rhetoric lately from both countries. It seems pretty thinly sourced to me, and the supposed course of the trade talks seems to change almost daily, but stock indices are up considerably all the same.

Moreover, even leaving that proviso aside, what I wrote to the CNBC folks yesterday seems likely to hold up pretty well. And here it is:

1. The President’s latest comments on the China trade deal – which he says might take till after the presidential election to complete – seriously undermines the claim that he considers a deal crucial to his reelection chances because it’s likely to appease Wall Street and thereby prop up the economy. Of course, given Mr. Trump’s mercurial nature, and negotiating style, this latest statement could also simply amount to him playing “bad cop” for the moment.

2. His relative pessimism about a quick “Phase One” deal also seems to reinforce a suggestion implicitly made yesterday by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross when he listed verification and enforcement concerns as among the obstacles to signing the so-called Phase One deal. I have always argued that such concerns are likely to prevent the conclusion of any kind of trade deal acceptable to US interests. That’s both because of China’s poor record of keeping its commitments, and because the Chinese government is too secretive and too big to monitor effectively even the most promising Chinese pledges to change policies on intellectual property theft, illegal subsidies, discriminatory government procurement, and other so-called structural issues.

3. Recent reports of the United States considering tightening (or expanding) restrictions on tech exports to Chinese entities like Huawei also support my longstanding point that the US and Chinese economies will continue to decouple whatever the fate of the current or other trade talks.

4. In my opinion, the President is absolutely right to play hard-to-get on China trade, because Chinese dictator Xi Jinping is under so much pressure due to his own weakening economy, and because of the still-explosive Hong Kong situation.

5. I’ll be especially interested to learn of the Democratic presidential candidates’ reactions to Mr. Trump’s latest China statement, as well as the announcement of the reimposed steel tariffs on Argentina and Brazil, and the threatened tariffs on French “digital services” [internet] taxes. With the exception of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the candidates’ China policies seem to boil down to “Yes, we need to get tough with China, but tariffs are the worst possible response.” None of them has adequately described an alternative approach. The reactions of Democratic Congress leaders Nancy Pelosi in the House and Charles Schumer will be worth noting, too. The latter has been strongly supportive of the Trump approach in general.

6. The new steel tariffs, as widely noted, are especially interesting because they were justified for currency devaluation reasons, with no mention made of the alleged national security threats originally cited as the rationale. Nonetheless, I don’t believe that they represent a significant change in the Trump approach to metals trade, because the administration has always emphasized the need for the duties to be global in scope – to prevent China from transshipping its overcapacity to the US through third countries, and to prevent third countries to relieve the pressures felt by their steel sectors from Chinese product by ramping up their own exports to the US. Obviously, all else equal, countries with weakening currencies (for whatever reason) will realize big advantages in steel trade, as the prices of their output will fall way below those of competitors’ steel industries.

7. Regarding the tariffs threatened in retaliation for France’s digital services tax, they’re consistent with Trump’s longstanding contention that the US-European Union (EU) trade relationship has been lopsidedly in favor of the Europeans for too long, and that tariff pressure is needed to restore some sustainable balance. In this vein, I don’t take seriously the French claim that the tax isn’t targeting U.S. companies specifically. After all, those firms are the dominant players in the field. Second, senior EU officials have started talking openly about strengthening Europe’s “technological sovereignty” – making sure that the continent eliminates its dependence on non-European entities in the sector (including China’s as well as America’s). The digital tax would certainly further the aim of building up European champions – and if need be, at the expense of US-owned companies.

By the way, this position of mine in no way reflects a view that more taxation and more regulation of these companies isn’t warranted. But it’s my belief that these issues should be handled by the American political system.

Also of note: Trump’s suggestion this morning that the French tax isn’t a big deal, and that negotiations look like a promising way to resolve the disagreement.

Finally, here are two more points I wound up making. First, I expressed agreement that the President’s tariff-centric trade policies have created significant uncertainties in the economy’s trade-heavy manufacturing sector in particular – stalling some of the planned business investment that’s essential for healthy growth. But I also noted that much of this uncertainty surely stems from the on-again-off-again nature of the tariffs’ actual and threatened imposition.

As a result, I argued, uncertainty could be significantly reduced if Mr. Trump made much clearer that, whatever the trade talks’ fate, the days of Washington trying to maximize unfettered bilateral trade and investment are over, and a new era marked by much more caution and many more restrictions (including tighter export controls and investment restrictions, as well as tariffs), is at hand.

Second, at the very end, I contended that President Trump deserves great credit for focusing public attention on the country’s massive trade deficits in general. For notwithstanding the standard economists’ view that they don’t matter, reducing them is essential if Americans want their economy’s growth to become healthy, and more sustainable. For as the last financial crisis should have taught the nation, when consumption exceeds production by too great a margin, debts and consequent economic bubbles get inflated – and tend to burst disastrously.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Amazon.com Could Kill the Entire Economy

Tags

Amazon.com, bubble decade, bubbles, consumption, credit, Financial Crisis, gig economy, Great Depression, Great Recession, Henry George School of Social Science, housing, housing bubble, production, productivity, Robin Gaster, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday I was in New York City, on one of my monthly trips to attend board meetings of the Henry George School of Social Science, an economic research and educational institute I serve as a Trustee. And beforehand, I was privileged to moderate a school seminar focusing on the possibly revolutionary economic as well as social and cultural implications of Amazon.com’s move into book publishing.

You can watch the eye-opening presentation by economic and technology consultant Robin Gaster here, but I’m posting this item for another reason: It’s an opportunity to spotlight and explore a little further two Big Think questions raised toward the event’s end.

The first concerns what Amazon’s overall success means for the rough balance that any soundly structured economic needs between consumption and production. As known by RealityChek readers, consumption’s over-growth during the previous decade deserves major blame for the terrifying financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession – whose longer term effects have included the weakest (though longest) economic recovery in American history. (See, e.g., here.)

Simply put, the purchases (in particular of homes) by too many Americans way outpaced their ability to finance this spending responsibly, artificially and unprecedentedly cheap credit eagerly offered by the country’s foreign creditors and the Federal Reserve filled the gap. But once major repayment concerns (inevitably) surfaced, the consumption boom was exposed as a mega-bubble that proceeded to collapse and plunge the entire world economy into the deepest abyss since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

As also known by RealityChek regulars, U.S. consumption nowadays isn’t much below the dangerous and ultimately disastrous levels it reached during the Bubble Decade. And one of the points made by Gaster yesterday (full disclosure: he’s a personal friend as well as a valued professional colleague) is that by using its matchless market power to squeeze its supplier companies in industry after industry to provide their goods (and services, in the case of logistics companies) at the lowest possible prices, Amazon has delivered almost miraculous benefits to consumers (not only record low prices, but amazing convenience). But this very success may be threatening the ability of the economy’s productive dimension to play its vital role in two ways.

First, it may drive producing businesses out of business by denying them the profitability needed to survive over any length of time. Second, Amazon’s success may encourage so many of its suppliers to stay afloat by cutting labor costs so drastically that it prevents the vast majority of consumers who are also workers from financing adequate levels of consumption with their incomes, not via unsustainable borrowing. Indeed, as Gaster noted, it may push many of these suppliers to adopt Amazon’s practice of turning as much of it own enormous workforce into gig employees – i.e., workers paid bare bones wages and denied both benefits and any meaningful job security. And that can only undermine their ability to finance consumption responsibly and sustainably. 

I tried to identify a possible silver lining: The pricing pressures exerted by Amazon could force many of its suppliers to compensate, and preserve and even expand their profits, by boosting productivity. Such efficiency improvements would be an undeniable plus for the entire economy, and historically, anyway, they’ve helped workers, too, by creating entirely new industries and related new opportunities (along, eventually, with higher wages). Gaster was somewhat skeptical, and I can’t say I blame him. History never repeats itself exactly.

But to navigate the future successfully, Americans will need to know what’s emerging in the present. And when it comes to the economic impact of a trail-blazing, disruption-spreading corporate behemoth like Amazon, I can think of only one better place to start than Gaster’s presentation yesterday –  his upcoming book on the subject. I’ll be sure to plug it here on RealityChek as soon as it’s out.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: No, the Fed Isn’t Terribly Worried About a Trade-Mageddon

Tags

agriculture, consumption, Federal Open Market Committee, Federal Reserve, FOMC, inflation, interest rates, investment, Jobs, Mainstream Media, monetary policy, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

OK, let’s get away from John Brennan, and public view of Russia, and get back to something uncontroversial only by comparison – President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies. (Don’t worry – I’m sure I’ll get to the Trump-related Michel Cohen and Paul Manafort legal results as soon as I can figure out something distinctive to say about them.)

As known by RealityChek regulars, the national media has been filled with articles reporting that Mr. Trump’s actual and threatened tariffs on aluminum and steel, and on products from China, have already started backfiring on the U.S. economy in any number of ways: leading to job and production cuts in industries that use the two metals as key inputs, and creating major uncertainty throughout the economy among sectors dependent on Chinese products as parts, components, and materials for their goods, and on selling Chinese final products to consumers.

The official U.S. data on economic growth and employment, as I’ve reported, have shown that, so far, exactly the opposite has been true for the metals-using industries. Yesterday afternoon, another important indicator was made public that casts major doubt that the economy is currently experiencing a “trade-mageddon,” or is bound to any day now. I’m referring to the minutes of the July 31-August 1 meeting of the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) – the members of the central bank’s board of governors who vote on monetary policy.

Most Mainstream Media newspaper headlines claimed that latest version of these minutes – which contain separate detailed analyses of the nation’s economic and financial situation by the FOMC members and the Fed’s staff of economists alike – contained sobering warnings about the “escalating trade war” posing “a big threat” to the current American recovery. And the members (I’ll focus on their analysis, given that they actually decide on the Fed’s moves) did definitely express trade-related concerns. Here’s how they put it:

“all participants [FOMC members] pointed to ongoing trade disagreements and proposed trade measures as an important source of uncertainty and risks. Participants observed that if a large-scale and prolonged dispute over trade policies developed, there would likely be adverse effects on business sentiment, investment spending, and employment. Moreover, wide-ranging tariff increases would also reduce the purchasing power of U.S. households. Further negative effects in such a scenario could include reductions in productivity and disruptions of supply chains. Other downside risks cited included the possibility of a significant weakening in the housing sector, a sharp increase in oil prices, or a severe slowdown in EMEs [emerging market economies].

But here’s what the members also said:

>Despite the above concern about consumer purchasing power suffering from tariff hikes, “Indicators of longer-term inflation expectations were little changed, on balance.”

>Several members commented that “prices of particular goods, such as those induced by the tariff increases” would likely fuel some “upward pressure on the inflation rate” but that these pressures would be “short-term” and had multiple causes. Further, depressed agricultural prices – due partly to recent trade developments, as noted below – would exert downward pressure on domestic inflation.

>Despite concerns about the impact of trade-induced uncertainty, “incoming data indicated considerable momentum in spending by households and businesses” and that levels of household and business confidence (regarded as key forward looking economic indicators) remained “high.”

>“Business contacts in a few Districts reported that uncertainty regarding trade policy had led to some reductions or delays in their investment spending.” Yet “a number of participants indicated that most businesses concerned about trade disputes had not yet cut back their capital expenditures or hiring….” And the possibility that prolonged trade tensions would change this picture was only described as a possibility.

>Although “Several participants observed that the agricultural sector had been adversely affected by significant declines in crop and livestock prices over the intermeeting period,” some FOMC members observed that this deterioration only “likely” and “partly flowed from trade tensions.”

And perhaps most important, the FOMC members “viewed the recent data [including trade-related information] as indicating that the outlook for the economy was evolving about as they had expected” and that their stated determination to raise the federal funds rate gradually, in order to sustain the expansion but discourage economic overheating, remained fully intact.

As the Fed participants always say, their analyses and policy decisions will be data-dependent. But it’s clear that the real message of these minutes is that the data justify no trade war-related alarmism now, and little for the foreseeable future.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why the Trump-ers (So Far) Aren’t Wrong About the Dollar

Tags

bubbles, consumption, currency, debt, dollar, exchange rates, finance, Financial Crisis, growth, inflation, investment, protectionism, Steve Mnuchin, Trade, Treasury Department, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The economics, finance, and business worlds are kind of up in arms over U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s suggestion earlier this week that a weaker U.S. dollar would be good for the American economy.

I say “kind of up in arms” because Mnuchin’s remarks were more nuanced than generally reported; because financial markets in particular seem to be on steroids and have barely reacted; and because he took pains afterwards to profess his confidence that, despite its recent falling value, nothing fundamental had changed to undermine the greenback’s historic appeal to investors. Indeed, just a little while ago, President Trump stated that he “ultimately” wants to see a strong dollar. 

I say “up in arms” to some extent because, the President’s newest words notwithstanding, no American Treasury Secretary has ever said anything remotely like this in public for decades; because Mnuchin’s original words looked suspiciously consistent with what the establishments in these interconnected economic worlds abhor as the Trump administration’s protectionist instincts on trade policy (because all else equal, a weak dollar promotes U.S. exports and curbs U.S. imports); and because dollar strength (and the big U.S. trade deficits it’s encouraged) has long been a cornerstone of the global economy, and a major growth engine for the numerous countries that rely on selling to Americans to promote their own output and employment. (Hence many of them fiddle around with their own currencies’ values to make sure they can sustain these strategies.) Many strong dollar proponents also claim that a weaker American currency could dangerously stoke inflation (especially by boosting import prices) and deter investment inflows into the United States.

But two crucial points are Missing in Action in the tumult sparked by Mnuchin’s remarks. One should be obvious but can’t be repeated often enough, especially in these current overwrought times: You can have too much and too little of a good thing. An overly weak dollar would cause major problems for the U.S. economy. So would an overly strong dollar. Therefore, the key is not to assume either extreme (especially in the absence of any evidence that they’re around the corner) but to figure out a dollar level that achieves the best combination of benefits.

The second has been much less much widely recognized even in calmer periods, but it’s closely related to my longstanding point about the importance of the quality of American growth. As I’ve written frequently, growth based largely on production and the growing incomes it generates place the economy on the soundest foundation. This approach may not always produce the fastest growth, but it fosters the growth that tends to last longest, and that’s least likely to inflate bubbles that then collapse into economic and financial crises).

Such disasters, as we should have learned, stem from growth largely based on borrowing and consuming – i.e., on shopping sprees that eventually can’t be paid for responsibly, and can only continue by racking up enormous debts. And other than legitimate (though clearly overblown nowadays) concerns about inflation, that’s a main reason why folks in finance – and everyone on their payroll in the U.S. government and the rest of Washington – like the strongest possible dollar. Until the merry-go-round stops, they make tons of money by lending to those borrowers.

Here’s where the dollar’s value comes in. A strong-ish greenback tends to result in that borrowing and consuming brand of growth. A weak-ish dollar tends to result in the healthier kind of growth. And as indicated by this chart showing the change in the dollar’s value (also called the exchange rate) against other currencies, only looked at over the shortest possible period could the dollar nowadays be called weak or even weakening. Over a much longer period, it’s obviously still well in “strong territory.” 

And it’s no coincidence, as I’ve also written, that although the U.S. economy seems to be making some slight progress toward creating healthier growth, it still has way too long a way to go – especially given that the current recovery from the crises and the painful recession that followed is now more than eight years old.

The lessons, then, look clear. If you only care about the fastest growth possible regardless of its makeup or the longer-term consequences, and/or if you think finance should be the dominant part of the American economy, you’ll join the chorus of critics scolding Mnuchin for even hinting that some further dollar decline wouldn’t be a disaster for the nation. If you’d like the economy to steer clear of near-meltdowns like the one experienced just about a decade ago, you’ll be applauding what still looks like a subtle call from him for a somewhat weaker dollar.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Growth is Better. It’s Quality? Not so Much

Tags

business spending, consumption, Financial Crisis, GDP, gross domestic product, growth, housing, inflation-adjusted growth, real GDP, recession, recovery, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since the crucial role played by low-quality (e.g., credit- and debt-fueled) growth in triggering the financial crisis and last recession keeps getting ignored even by most Americans who follow the economy professionally, I’ll keep posting on how well the nation has been faring in producing higher quality growth. Sadly, the new initial figures just in on gross domestic product (GDP) in the third quarter show that the answer remains “Not very well.”

The key measure I’ve been using is the share of the economy, adjusted for inflation, represented by personal consumption and housing combined. These two comprise the “toxic combination” that supercharged the debt boom during the last decade.

According to the first read on third quarter real GDP, the consumption share of the economy dipped – from an all-time record of 69.60 percent in the second quarter, to 69.49 percent. The housing figure shrank, too – from 3.49 percent to 3.41 percent.

As a result, the toxic combination total decreased slightly, from 73.09 percent to 72.90 percent. That’s below the all-time high for this pair – 73.27 percent, in the second quarter of 2005. But the difference is pretty modest.

And as suggested by the above, the big difference is in housing. It’s share of the economy after factoring out inflation peaked during the previous bubble decade at 6.17 percent.

Some good news might be emerging on the business investment front – though it’s far from conclusive and heavily dependent on the time frame examined. Corporate spending on plant and equipment and software and research and development is a much more durable foundation for growth (and prosperity) than personal consumption and home-buying. And there are signs that it’s becoming a more important growth engine once again. The best measure of this progress entails how much growth such spending is generating.

The results so far for this year? In the first quarter, business spending was responsible for a huge 71.67 percent of the economy’s modest (1.23 percent annualized) expansion in constant dollar terms. For the second quarter, the share was much lower – 26.45 percent of 3.03 percent total growth at an annual rate. And for the third quarter, 16.33 percent of 2.96 percent total annualized growth.

So the trend this year isn’t so encouraging. But compare it with last year. In 2016, business spending that fell in absolute terms subtracted 5.33 percent of the year’s 1.49 percent total growth. The previous year was better, but not as good as this year. In 2015, business spending only generated 10.34 percent of the year’s 2.86 percent real growth.

Earlier during the current recovery, most of the annual figures were much higher:

2010: 11.20 percent

2011: 53.15 percent

2012: 47.73 percent

2013: 25.29 percent

2014: 33.08 percent

The glass half-full interpretation? The previous two years were an aberration, and the growth role of business spending has resumed increasing. The glass half-empty view? During the last decade’s expansion, business spending’s spending’s contribution to growth was much higher in absolute terms, and accelerated impressively as the recovery continued. Here are those figures:

2001: subtracted 34.00 percent (the expansion officially began at year-end)

2002: subtracted 51.67 percent

2003: 8.21 percent

2004: 16.32 percent

2005: 25.15 percent

2006: 32.22 percent

2007: 42.22 percent

It’s surely too early to know which trend will prevail. Much more important is persuading American leaders to pay attention. For nothing will matter more in shaping the country’s economic future.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America’s Now Struggling to Sustain Even Unhealthy Growth

Tags

consumption, economic growth, Financial Crisis, personal savings, recession, recovery, savings rate, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Don’t blink! As revealed by government data released yesterday, the U.S. personal savings rate has been vanishing so quickly lately that, before too long, you might miss it entirely. And here’s the kicker to this latest evidence: Although, as I reported on Monday, the American economy is just about as consumption-heavy as during the run-up to the financial crisis, all the resulting spending is now generating growth that’s not only subpar by historical standards, but shockingly weak.

According to the Commerce Department, the savings rate for the last three quarters of national economic activity (through the second quarter of this year) has sunk below four percent of disposable personal income for the first time since the first quarter of 2008. The latest nadir of 3.6 percent was hit in the fourth quarter of last year, and represents the lowest such level since the fourth quarter of 2007 (2.8 percent). If those dates sound familiar, they should. That’s when the last recession officially broke out. As of the second quarter of this year, the rate bounced back a bit to 3.8 percent.

These are a pretty far cry from the worst savings rates in U.S. history. During the previous (bubble) decade, this figure bottomed out at 2.2 percent (in the third quarter of 2005). But the latest numbers are a much further cry from the double-digit levels that were common from the early 1950s through the early 1980s.

After the last recession began, there was some evidence that Americans were learning the lessons of over-spending and socking away more of their incomes. By the second quarter of 2008, the savings rate jumped from 3.7 percent in the first quarter of that year to 5.7 percent. It rose steadily even after the recovery began in the middle of 2009, and actually hit 9.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012. Savings didn’t stay nearly that high, but still generally remained well above five percent through the early part of last year. Since then, however, they’ve slid pretty rapidly downhill.

Throughout the recovery, shortsighted economists and other observers actually have bemoaned these signs of consumer caution as unnecessary restraints on economic growth that were preventing the expansion from achieving a satisfactory pace. I disagree, because as I wrote on Monday, the nation needs a sustainable basis for growth, to improve its long-term economic health, even more urgently than it needs faster growth. But what’s especially troubling about the recent drop in the savings rate is that it’s shown no ability to generate what’s seen as respectable growth at all.

In fact, over these last three quarters of weak personal savings rates, the economy grew in real terms by just 1.8 percent, 1.2 percent, and 2.6 percent (the preliminary figure for the second quarter of this year). Those results aren’t even impressive by the low bar set by the current expansion. And they’re positively abysmal when compared with the performance registered between the early 1950s and 1980s, when double-digit savings rates were no obstacle at all to real growth rates of between five and ten percent!

Of course, America’s growth rises and falls for many reasons part from savings and consumption rates. Moreover, the economy of that 1950s-1980s period was very different structurally from today. One example: Military spending played a much bigger economic role during those Cold War decades, and generated abundant production, as well as employment. At the same time, for most of that era, women had not entered the labor market in great numbers, meaning that households generally speaking were living off a single paycheck and benefits package. And still both growth and family incomes were by and large stellar.

The current situation, though, is unmistakably sobering. In recent decades, America has substituted borrowing and spending for saving and producing as its main engines of growth. Now even the unhealthy growth recipe has not only helped trigger a terrifying financial crisis and deep recession. But seven or eight year after those crises were overcome, the spendthrift approach seems close to exhaustion. In sports, those playing a losing game are usually encouraged to change it. How much longer before Americans and their leaders take the hint?

(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.