(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing Keeps Gaining Independence

Tags

Commerce Department, decoupling, GDP-by-industry, health security, healthcare goods, manufacturing, manufacturing production, manufacturing trade deficit, Obama, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Like a strike-shortened sports season’s champion, the conclusion in today’s RealityChek post needs an asterisk. The conclusion stems from this morning’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Industry report from the Commerce Department, which shows that U.S. domestic manufacturing continues to become ever more self-reliant. In other words, it’s reducing its dependence for growth on foreign-made industrial goods of all kinds generally speaking.

The asterisk is needed because the new data covers the first quarter of this year, and therefore it includes March – when much of the U.S economy was shut down by government order or recommendation due to the CCP Virus. As a result, a chunk of the results say nothing about how manufacturing or the rest of economy would have performed in normal times.

Still, this morning’s evidence that U.S.-based industry is becoming more autonomous comes from several different findings calculable from the GDP by Industry’s raw data.

For example, again, due partly to the shutdowns’ effects, the report shows that according to a widely followed measure called value-added, domestic manufacturing’s output dipped by 0.99 percent between the first quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of this year. At the same time, the manufacturing trade deficit during this period shrank by 7.31 percent – more than 13 times faster. During the last comparable period (fourth quarter, 2018 to fourth quarter, 2019), manufacturing production grew by 0.70 percent, and its trade gap narrowed by 7.59 percent – a somewhat better performance on both scores.

At this point it’s vital to note that these growth rates are by no means good. In fact, they’re the worst by far since the final year of the Obama administration – when on a calendar year basis, domestic industry shrank by 1.19 percent. Yet during that same year 2016, despite this contraction, the manufacturing trade shortfall expanded by 4.66 percent. So if you value self-sufficiency (as you should in a world in which the United States has found itself painfully short of many healthcare-related goods, and in which dozens of its trade partners were hoarding their own supplies), it’s clear that during 2016, the nation was getting the worst of all possible manufacturing worlds.

Also important: there’s no doubt that the same Trump administration tariffs and trade wars with which domestic manufacturing has been dealing over the past two years have slowed its growth. In other words, industry has been adjusting to policy-created pressures to adjust its global, and in particular China-centric, supply chains. That’s bound to create inefficiencies.

If you don’t care about significant American economic reliance on an increasingly hostile dictatorship, you’ll carp about paying any efficiency price for this decoupling from China (and other unreliable countries). If you do care, you’ll recognize the slower growth as an adjustment cost needed to correct the disastrous choice made by pre-Trump Presidents to undercut America’s economic independence severely.

Moreover, during the last year, domestic manufacturing output was held back by two developments that had nothing to do with President Trump’s trade policy: the strike at General Motors in the fall of 2019, which slashed U.S. production both of vehicles and parts, and of all the components and materials that comprise dedicated auto parts; and the safety problems at Boeing, which resulted in the grounding of its popular 737 Max model worldwide starting in March, 2019, and in a suspension of all that aircraft’s production this past January.

Also encouraging from a self-reliance standpoint. During the first quarter of 2019, the manufacturing trade deficit as a percentage of domestic manufacturing output sank from just under 43 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019 (and 43.36 percent for the entirety of last year) to 37.27 percent. That’s the lowest level since full-year 2013’s 35.82 percent.

These figures should make clear that the manufacturing trade deficit’s share of manufacturing output kept growing during the final Obama years and into the Trump years. Indeed, on an annual basis, this number peaked at 47.01 percent in the third quarter of 2019. To some extent, blame what I’ve previously identified as tariff front-running (the rush by importers throughout the trade war to bring product into the United States before threatened tariffs were actually imposed) along with those supply chain-related adjustment costs.

To complicate matters further, as suggested above, that very low first quarter result stemmed partly from the nosedive taken by manufacturing and other U.S. economic activity in March. Since that level is clearly artificially low, it’s probably going to bob up eventually – but hopefully not recover fully.

In all, though, the first quarter GDP by Industry report points to a future of more secure supplies of manufactured goods for Americans. And unless you believe that domestic manufacturers have completely lost their ability to adjust successfully to a (needed) New Normal in U.S. trade policy, the release points to a return of solid manufacturing output growth rates as well.

Im-Politic: Bolton’s China Derangement Syndrome

Tags

China, decoupling, election 2020, Huawei, Im-Politic, John R. Bolton, Lighthizer, Made in China 2025, national security, Phase One, Robert M. Lighthizer, sanctions, tariffs, tech, Trade, trade enforcement, trade war, Trump

How are John R. Bolton’s new kiss-and-tell revelations to date about his tenure as President Trump’s national security adviser truly deranged? In at least three big, related ways when it comes to China.

First, (according to this most comprehensive statement of his views) Bolton apparently was too busy marketing this policy potboiler to have bothered reading the text of the trade deal with China Mr. Trump signed in mid-January. Rather than the agreement entailing “less…than met the eye,” it entailed much more. Not only did the Phase One deal require China greatly to boost its purchases of U.S.-made advanced manufactures (in addition to the agricultural products on which Bolton obsesses). It also created dispute resolution procedures – meaning an enforcement mechanism – completely tilted in America’s favor.

As I’ve explained, when all procedures are exhausted, China is only entitled to pull out of the entire agreement if it’s unhappy with the results – an extreme unlikelihood given China’s heavy reliance on selling to the U.S. market to maintain growth and employment that Beijing sees as being both political and economically important. The United States has the same ultimate option, but its threats to do so would be highly credible, given the huge net losses it suffered from pre-Trump China trade policies.

Moreover, the President secured these benefits while maintaining steep U.S. tariffs on literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of prospective Chinese exports to America – and especially on those high value manufactures that have benefited most from the Made in China 2025 program and other Chinese predatory economic policies, and whose development pose the greatest threats to U.S. national security as well as prosperity. Also crucial – Bolton criticizes his former boss for agreeing to China’s insistence that he refrain from imposing new tariffs in return for restarting the trade talks. But the structure of the trade agreement leaves this option entirely open to the United States – and, in effect, with impunity. 

By the way, the results of the trade talks also demolish Bolton’s uber-claim that President Trump’s China policies stemmed solely from his desire for reelection, and the related suggestion that Mr. Trump believed that a purely cosmetic agreement would serve his political purposes much more effectively than reaching a deal heavily favoring U.S. interests.

They similarly leave as a smoking ruin Bolton’s allegation that the President continued to flatter Chinese leader Xi Jinping after the CCP Virus broke out because he was desperate to preserve the trade agreement. If anyone felt such desperation, it was Xi – whose regime hasn’t even tried to use the virus’ damage to China’s own economy as an excuse for at least temporarily ignoring Phase One’s import requirements.

Bolton’s second deranged claim follows on directly from that last point. On the one hand, he accuses the President of being completely indifferent to his master plan of fitting “China trade policy into a broader strategic framework,” and complains that “we struggled to avoid being sucked into the black hole of U.S.-China trade issues.”

On the other hand, he credits Mr. Trump with appreciating “the key truth that politico-military power rests on a strong economy. Trump frequently says that stopping China’s unfair economic growth at America’s expense is the best way to defeat China militarily, which is fundamentally correct.”

Yet as just detailed, Bolton heaps scorn on major Trump achievements that have gone far toward weakening China’s economy vis-a-vis America’s. Moreover, such Trump moves also include punishing sanctions on Chinese telecoms giant Huawei that Bolton bizarrely views as undeserving of mention.

The final evidence of Bolton’s derangement: his whining about the President’s decision-making style. According to the author, Americans should be up in arms because Mr. Trump’s advisers have been “badly fractured intellectually” and because “Trade matters were handled from day one in a completely chaotic way.” Indeed, the Trump leadership style, Bolton moans, “made my head hurt.”

To which any minimally intelligent and/or adult reader should respond “So what?” Leaving aside that it was never the President’s job to please whatever otherwordly expectations Bolton (a longtime Washington operator who obviously knows better) claims to have had about policymaking processes, the results have been entirely coherent and clear to anyone caring actually to look. Whatever uncertainties Mr. Trump may have had about choosing China trade tactics and whose advice to follow, he has plainly put U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer and other so-called hawks in command, and the results have been a wide variety of measures that have both gut-punched China’s economy (see, e.g., here) and steadily decoupled America’s economic fortunes from this dangerous dictatorship. (See, e.g., this post.)

Unless the rest of Bolton’s forthcoming book is completely different and indeed vastly more coherent than the portions made public to date (and why would he and his publicists want to lead with any material they believed wasn’t bullet-proof), his tell-all will only be important for shedding light on a single question: Will the author be best remembered as a dangerously incompetent armchair warhawk who helped lead the United States into a major disaster in Iraq, or as a wildly flailing freelance wannabe hitman who tried to sabotage an urgently needed turnaround in America’s approach to China?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is The Wall Street Journal Now Getting Woke on China Trade?

Tags

allies, China, decoupling, dual-use technologies, health security, high tech goods, Huawei, investment, manufacturing, national security, technology, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Hell has frozen over! Death and taxes are no longer certain! Water is flowing uphill!

Those are just some of my calmer reactions upon learning that The Wall Street Journal editorial board has just endorsed the idea of a “partial decoupling” of America’s economy from China‘s.

Given today’s national mood, and the marked turn it’s taken against various domestic and international outrages committed by China, this may not sound surprising – especially if you (unlike me) haven’t immersed yourself in the trade policy wars Americans have waged against each in recent decades. But in a Mainstream Media long world filled with staunch supporters of the kinds of approaches to foreign trade and international commerce generally pursued by pre-Trump U.S. Presidents, the Journal‘s editorial writers have been far and away the staunchest. Indeed, their arguments usually read like they’ve been taken straight out of standard economic textbooks, without even paying lip service to real world complications.

Not that the Journal ever championed unfettered trade and commerce in war-time. (This exception was formally identified by the so-called Father of Capitalism, Adam Smith .) And not that it ever supported selling, say, weapons to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or encouraging investment in North Vietnam during the 1960s and early 1970s.

But the editorial doesn’t describe today’s world in those terms. Instead, it notes that  “partial decoupling may be necessary to prevent China from accumulating more leverage to bully the free world.” and that “U.S. and allied dependence on Chinese technology in a crisis….could allow the Chinese Communist Party to disrupt or shut down parts of foreign economies—or use the threat as political leverage.”

And the Journal‘s editorial board is right. Those threats are more than serious enough to justify departures from conventional free trade and broader global economic policies – which understandably prize economic efficiency and low prices and individual economic freedoms during peacetime, but which have struggled to deal with those all too commonplace gray periods between tranquility and all-out conflict.

Yet however satisfying this apparent U-turn will be to the Journal‘s longtime trade antagonists (and take it from me – it’s really satisfying), for the sake of intellectual honesty, and of U.S. national interests, its editorial board will need to go much further. And so will other influential voices who are acting newly woke about the China threat, but who may mainly be looking for safe harbors during what they hope is merely a passing storm. Several reasons stand out, and all stem from the critical reality that no industry exists in isolation from other areas of the domestic economy – let alone other industries.

So to all the ostensible pragmatists who, for example have recognized – at least rhetorically – that national security needs to come before free trade and commerce, it’s high time to recognize the implications of a development you’ve long claimed to understand: that many products crucial for national defense also have major and even predominantly civilian functions, and that for such such dual-use goods and technologies (and not only semiconductors, but high-value manufactures of all kinds) strong domestic manufacturing bases are essential.

Moreover, maintaining strong domestic manufacturing bases requires maintaining robust production complexes for all the key parts and components of the final products.

These imperatives also apply to critical healthcare goods. For example, it doesn’t do much good to set as a goal making massive numbers of the most effective facemasks in America without also ensuring adequate domestic supplies of the raw materials and the machinery needed to make them. And currently, the global production centers are in China. Similarly, what’s the point of resolving to restore national self-sufficiency in ventilators when the nation remains woefully short of the circuit boards, sensors, computer chips, tubes, and numerous other parts they’re made of?

In addition, as pointed out repeatedly on RealityChek, the secure supply problem goes way beyond China. During the CCP Virus period, literally dozens of countries, including long-term treaty allies, have embargoed or curbed exports of healthcare equipment of all types. That is, as with war, there are few free traders during a pandemic.

The lessons of dealing with both China and the CCP Virus should be screamingly obvious: In their own ways, they both represent systemic problems, and therefore require systemic, not entity-by-entity or country-by-country, responses. Acknowledging these lessons will be the test of whether the Journal‘s editorial writers and others of their ilk actually are ready to play useful roles in developing realistic U.S. trade policies, or whether they’re simply posturing.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Full Virus-Distortion Mode for New U.S. Trade Figures

Tags

aerospace, Boeing, CCP Virus, China, civilian aircraft, coronavirus, COVID 19, decoupling, exports, imports, manufacturing, manufacturing trade deficit, Phase One, Trade, Trump, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Here’s a heck of a way to start a blog post: On the one hand, it’s a relief to.be writing about something other than the shameful George Floyd killing and its too-often-violent aftermath, and focus on an economic issue like the latest U.S. trade figures. On the other hand, because of the CCP Virus and the deep U.S. and global recessions (and possibly worse) it’s triggered, it’s hard to make the case that the new numbers (for April) even say much of anything useful about that month, much less about how trade flows and their impact on the economy might evolve going forward.

Even less serious is the notion that they shed light on the past, present, or likely future effectivness of President Trump’s Phase One trade deal with China – which incidentally only went into effect in mid-February.

All the same, speaking of China, the month-on-month change was discouraging at least on the surface. The goods deficit nearly doubled between March and April – from $11.83 billion to $22.27 billion. The last change of that magnitude came back in April, 1989, when trade flows were orders of magnitude smaller, and therefore huge fluctuations much easier to generate. Moreover, this trade gap bounceback followed two straight months of dramatic decline that brought the shortfall to its lowest level since March, 2004.

Worth noting in this regard for additional context. On a year-to-date basis, the U.S. goods shortfall with China is down by 28.55 percent. That’s more than three times greater than the 8.17 percent decrease in the global U.S. merchandise deficit, and more than six times faster than the 4.52 shrinkage of America’s worldwide non-oil goods gap, which is a better global proxy for U.S.-China trade.

In other words, here’s clear evidence of major progress toward President Trump’s unstated but apparent goal of decoupling the U.S. and Chinese economies.

U.S. merchandise exports to the economy of the People’s Republic, which by most accounts has started recovering steadily from its own pandemic setback – did rise by 7.94 percent. But the much greater value of imports shot up by 56.88 percent. That’s the biggest percentage increase ever. In second place? The 49.92 jump back in January, 1986, when trade flows were miniscule.

Year-to-date, U.S. goods exports to China are down by 9.03 percent – a little less than overall U.S. goods exports (9.46 percent) and than overall U.S. non-oil goods exports (10.86 percent).

The comparable imports figures: America’s merchandise purchases from China are off by 23.88 percent. That’s more than twice decrease of its total goods imports (9.03 percent) and of its non-oil goods imports (8.45 percent).

In other words, here’s clear evidence that the decoupling and contraction of the bilateral deficit is taking place exactly where it should from an American standpoint – on the import side.

Some other notable takeaways from the April trade report:

>The combined goods and services trade deficit soared sequentially in April by 16.66 percent, to $49.41 billion. That’s the highest monthly total since last August’s $50.78 billion, and the biggest such rise since…March’s revised 22.11 percent.

But that revision is a story in and of itself. The originally reported $44.42 billion figure for the month is now estimated at just $42.34 billion – 4.68 percent lower. That’s an unusually big change, and indicates some major, CCP Virus-related data-gathering and analysis problems.

Year-to-date, the total trade deficit has fallen by 13.36 percent.

>Total U.S. exports took by far the biggest hit in April. plunging by 20.46 percent, from an upwardly revised $190.18 billion to $151.28 billion. That’s the lowest monthly total since the $150.01 billion recorded in April, 2010, when the last economic recovery was still young.

Moreover, the monthly nosedive was both nearly twice as bad as the old record holder of 10.19 percent set in CCP Virus- and shutdown-impacted March, and nearly doubled the previous all-time high (going back to 1992) of 5.50 percent set in September, 2001 – the month of the September 11 terror attacks.

Goods exports fell even faster – by 33.71 percent, from a downardly revised $127.72 billion to $95.52 billion. This contraction has just obliterated the previous record of 10.03 percent, from Great Recession-y December, 2008. (For comparison’s sake, goods exports declined by 5.80 percent in September, 2001).

>Combined goods and services imports were down dramatically, too, on month in April. But although an all-time high, the 13.36 percent decline — from an upwardly revised $232.52 billion to $200.69 billion – was much smaller than that for exports. In addition, it only slightly exceeded the previous monthly record of 11.58 percent, from the Great Recession month of November, 2008. Further, as with exports, the new April monthly total was also the lowest since April, 2010.

April’s monthly goods import decrease was only a bit greater – 13.62 percent, from an upwardly revised $193.74 billion to $167.35 billion. The monthly level was the lowest since November, 2010 and the rate of decrease just a hair above that of the aforementioned November, 2008.

>The longstanding and huge U.S. manufacturing trade deficit also grew sequentially in April – by 9.63 percent, from $75.08 billion to $82.31 billion..That was the biggest monthly total since October, 2019’s $92.70 billion.

Manufacturing exports sank by 30.51 percent on month in April, while the much larger value of imports was 12.78 percent lower.

Interestingly, the sequential worsening of the manufacturing trade shortfall was dominated by the country’s civilian aerospace industry – once far and away America’s trade surplus and surplus growth leader. But between March and April, this surplus tumbled by 73.21 percent, from $4.05 billion to $1.09 billion. The $2.97 billion decrease accounted for fully 41 percent of the widening of the manufacturing trade gap, and stems from the combined impact of aerospace giant Boeing’s continuing safety woes and production cutbacks, the virus-induced global recession, and its especially great impact on the travel industry.

Year-to-date, moreover, the manufacturing trade gap has narrowed by 6.62 percent, from $324.59 billion to $303.59 billion.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Closer U.S. Taiwan Ties Must Become a Two-Way Street

Tags

alliances, allies, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, decoupling, East Asia-Pacific, foreign investment, Hong Kong, Huawei, national security, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, South Korea, Taiwan, tech, Trade, Trump, TSMC, Wuhan virus

As if its CCP Virus coverup and planned crackdown on what’s left of Hong Kong’s freedoms weren’t bad enough, China has been escalating its aggressive words and deeds throughout its East Asia/Pacific neighborhood, and one major sign has been new pressure exerted on Taiwan – which Beijing views as a breakaway province that needs to end its rebellion immediately and join the Communist People’s Republic.

This more worrisome Chinese posture understandably has sparked calls for the United States to retaliate by demonstrating stronger support for Taiwan in various ways. This impulse also seems reasonable to me. But if the Trump administration speeds up its march down this road, it handles a closer relationship with Taiwan a lot better than its predecessors for decades had handled security alliance relationships with Japan and South Korea. Specifically, it’s crucial that Taiwan share much more of the burden of resisting China’s ambitions than has long been the case.

The latest alarm bells about China’s Taiwan policies have been set off by China’s words – or, more accurately, a missing word. Although the PRC (People’s Republic of China) has never renounced using force to achieve its longstanding aim “reunifying” China (as it defines the issue), its rhetorical positions toward the island have long fluctuated between the conciliatory and the blustery. But for 40 years, when Beijing mentioned of reunification, the word “peaceful” has always preceded it.

Last Friday, though, China’s second most important leader dropped the “peaceful” – and did it at a major forum: the annual meeting of the country’s rubberstamp parliament.

So it seems clear that the China cloud over Taiwan has darkened. But U.S. steps to bolster Taiwan’s security will greatly underperform – and may actually increase the dangers posed to America by China itself – unless Washington starts demanding in return that Taiwan stop its longstanding practice of investing massively in manufacturing in China, including in high tech sectors.

Indeed, as of 2018, according to this report, the total value of Taiwanese investment in China hit $180 billion – ten times the value of Taiwan’s investment in the United States. The annual amounts have been going down, but mainly because of the Trump administration’s tariffs on China, which have made it much more difficult for any factories in China – Chinese or foreign-owned – to earn fat profits by exporting major shares of their output to the United States. Even so, such investment had reached massive proportions. Indeed, in 2017. China still attracted nearly 45 percent of all Taiwan’s outbound foreign direct investment. Moreover, so much of this investment has come in technology sectors that fears have emerged of the island hollowing out its own innovation sector – which has been so vital to Taiwan’s spectacular economic development. And of course, Taiwanese companies like contract semiconductor manufacturing giant TSMC have been major suppliers of microchips and other high tech products to Chinese tech companies like Huawei, the global leader in advanced telecommunications.

It’s important to recognize that Taiwan is hardly the only U.S. ally that’s promoted China’s economic – and therefore technological and military – development. It’s not even the biggest. (That dubious honor goes to Hong Kong, but most of this Chinese “Special Administrative Region’s” direct investment flows to China seem to be concentrated in lower-tech, labor-intensive sectors without significant national security implications.) Moreover, the United States remains complicit itself.

But even though his administration doesn’t use the word, decoupling from China does appear to be a major goal of President Trump’s. There’s certainly been a lot of it. I’m not big at all on the United States embarking on a full-fledged campaign to mobilize East Asia/Pacific countries to out-compete China for influence in the  region. Indeed, I’ve argued that disentangling the United States from China economically is vital to ensure American security and prosperity on its own merits. But if President Trump does want to go the full-court anti-China press route, what’s the point if supposed American allies aren’t all-in on decoupling asd  as well?

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: A Cheer and a Half for Trump’s New China Strategy Document

Tags

alliances, allies, America First, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, decoupling, globalism, Josh Rogin, liberal global order, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Phase One, stock markets, technology, The National Interest, Trade, transactionalism, Trump, Washington Post, Wuhan virus

When over breakfast this morning I read Josh Rogin’s Washington Post column on the Trump administration’s new China strategy statement, I was pretty pleased. It’s been a long time since I viewed the intra-administration disagreements on the subject that its release has supposedly resolved as major problems in the China strategy overhaul that President Trump has sought, The tough and, more important, smart Phase One trade deal signed in mid-January was a convincing sign that the “doves” had been marginalized, but only one sign. The new statement itself describes many others. At the same time, the more basic agreement within Mr. Trump’s team, the better.

When I finally read the actual statement a little later, I was less pleased. It’s true that the President is both fully woke to the China threat, and that he’s reversed or overturned many of the disastrous mistakes made by his predecessors on a variety of fronts – including not only trade but technology, foreign investment, and exchange programs in particular. Moreover, the evidence is multiplying that the disaster created by the CCP Virus will lead to still tougher and, more important, still smarter measures. (A further crackdown on U.S. stock exchanges listings of Chinese entities is just one example.)

But the statement also made clear that Mr. Trump hasn’t made the clean break with previous globalist approaches to China and related aspects of American foreign policy that I’ve been advocating and that, as I’ve written, could lead to serious and needless dangers down the road. And as with much of the rest of the Trump framework, the big problem has to do with the role assigned to U.S. allies and alliances. Specifically, it’s still way too big, and not different enough from the globalist approach he’s rightly slammed verbally.

Not that “United States Strategic Approach to The People’s Republic of China” was devoid of America First-y ideas. It was great, for example, to see the administration reaffirm “Our approach is not premised on determining a particular end state for China. Rather, our goal is to protect United States vital national interests” (even though the United States keeps demanding, at least rhetorically, major structural reforms in China’s trade, technology, and other economic policies – demands I’ve explained are fruitless because of impossible monitoring and enforcement challenges).

Similarly encouraging, the top two vital interests identified: “(1) protect the American people, homeland, and way of life; (2) promote American prosperity….”

I also really liked “[T]he United States responds to the PRC’s [People’s Republic of China] actions rather than its stated commitments. Moreover, we do not cater to Beijing’s demands to create a proper ‘atmosphere’ or ‘conditions’ for dialogue. Likewise, the United States sees no value in engaging with Beijing for symbolism and pageantry; we instead demand tangible results and constructive outcomes.”

Indeed, the document adds, “We acknowledge and respond in kind to Beijing’s transactional approach with timely incentives and costs, or credible threats thereof.” This kind of transactionalism – expecting proposed foreign policy measures above all to create specific, measurable short-term benefits for the United States, rather than focusing on more ambitious steps that might turn out even better farther down the road, but whose success is far less certain – is a key tenet of America First foreign policies (as I’ve argued in the above linked National Interest article). Therefore, this explicit mention and endorsement of the term is most welcome (though it needs to be enshrined as a pillar of U.S. diplomacy elsewhere, too).

The statement’s treatment of transactionalism is closely related to its clear skepticism about another dubious globalist concept – though in this instance it’s more important for what it doesn’t say than for what it does: “[C]ompetition necessarily includes engagement with the PRC, but our engagements are selective and results-oriented, with each advancing our national interests….” I read this passage as an implicit announcement that the United States will no longer be seeking any particular kind of “relationship” with China, a gauzy goal that I’ve explained (on Twitter) creates powerful pressures to sacrifice concrete objectives in the here and now in the usually mistaken belief that the other party will feel obliged to make comparable sacrifices going forward – at some point.

And all this excellent material helps make clear why I’m so disappointed in the document’s numerous bow to globalism’s shibboleths. Two stand out in particular, and they’re so intimately intertwined as to be practically two sides of the same coin: the idea that it’s crucial for the United States to uphold something globalists (and the authors of this document) call a “rules-based international order,” and the maxim that critical building blocks of this order are America’s security alliances. The big problem from an America First standpoint with these notions? Once you buy into them, you’re back in Relationships-Uber-Alles-Land.

So I was distinctly unhappy to read passages like:

“[T]he United States does not and will not accommodate Beijing’s actions that weaken a free, open, and rules-based international order. We will continue to refute the CCP’s narrative that the United States is in strategic retreat or will shirk our international security commitments. The United States will work with our robust network of allies and likeminded partners to resist attacks on our shared norms and values, within our own governance institutions, around the world, and in international organizations.”

Indeed, the lionization of America’s international security commitments completely ignores problems that President Trump has rightly spotlighted – like flagrant defense free-riding, diplomatic fence-sitting, and trade policies that have ripped off America nearly as much as China’s. Just as thoroughly ignores problems that have largely escaped Mr. Trump’s notice – like the recent, rapidly growing nuclear war risks the United States has been running in places like the Korean peninsula and Eastern Europe precisely because its allies do so little to defend themselves. Does the Trump administration really believe it can count on these countries to help fight China if shooting starts?

Meanwhile, the similar shout-out to international organizations overlooks the administration’s warning in this very same document about the naivete of assuming that “engagement with rivals and their inclusion in international institutions and global commerce would turn them into benign actors and trustworthy partners.”

Another way to put this critique: The document pays no attention to the fundamental problem with rules-based order worship. In the last analysis, it’s never been based on adherence to rules – i.e., a consensus on what is and is not acceptable international behavior. It’s been based on a willingness of the so-called free world to allow the United States to bear most of the costs and risks of providing them with security and prosperity. Those costs and risks, however, have become unaffordable and unacceptable for the United States, and its allies have displayed no serious signs of helping carry the load.

Let’s end on a happier note: The new China document promises that the United States will judge China by its deeds and not by its words. And since despite the references to alliances and international orders, these considerations so far haven’t much inhibited the administration from hitting China ever harder, especially on the trade and technology fronts, focusing on its deeds seems like the best way to evaluate its China policy, too. 

In fact, here’s possibly the strongest proof of that pudding.  The document doesn’t once mention the aim or even the concept of “decoupling” – the notion that the United States should disengage economically from China as fast and as thoroughly as practicable.  But decoupling – indeed, big time decoupling – is exactly what’s been taking place during the age of Trump.

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of National Radio Interview on U.S.-China Decoupling

Tags

China, decoupling, FDI, Following Up, foreign direct investment, investment, manufacturing, pensions, public employees, retirement, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview yesterday on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show.  Click here for a timely update on dramatic new evidence that the U.S. and Chinese economies keep steadily – and in some cases quickly – disengaging.

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

Making News: Talking U.S.-China Decoupling Tonight on National Radio

Tags

China, decoupling, Gordon G. Chang, government workers, investment, Making News, pensions, The John Batchelor Show, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that I’ll be returning to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show tonight to discuss the latest twists and turns in U.S. policy toward China.  Because John and co-host Gordon G. Chang are pre-recording segments during this CCP Virus crisis, it’s still uncertain exactly when the interview will air.

But if you start listening live on-line to John’s show here at 9 PM EST, you’ll be sure not to miss an important, timely discussion of how fast the U.S. is disengaging economically (“decoupling,” as the term of art has it) from the People’s Republic.

As usual, I’ll post a link to the podcast of the interview as soon as one’s available.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Great New Developments on the U.S.-China Decoupling Front

Tags

CCP Virus, Census Bureau, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, decoupling, FDI, foreign direct investment, GDP, goods trade, gross domestic product, National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, Rhodium Group, supply chain, tariffs, Trade, Trump, venture capital, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Amid the flood of terrible news that’s been engulfing the U.S. economy because of the CCP Virus and its shutdown effects, there’s a decidedly positive development to report: Major evidence has just come in showing that the decoupling of the U.S. economy from China’s keeps proceeding. And, even better, the data make clear that the United States is amply capable of prospering without extensive ties with (and resulting vulnerabilities to) the increasingly hostile and dangerous regime in Beijing.

The latest evidence for such conclusions about the so-called decoupling process comes from a study just jointly released by a research firm called the Rhodium Group and a pillar of the Offshoring Lobby called the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. The real work was done by the folks at Rhodium, and the big takeaways are:

>that the value of Chinese “foreign direct investment” (FDI) in the United States (i.e., Chinese takeovers or acquisition of stakes in existing non-financial assets in the United States, and creation of new non-financial assets) fell slightly on year last year to its lowest annual level ($4.78 billion) since 2010, and is now nearly 90 percent below its peak annual level of $46.49 billion in 2016;

>that the value of Chinese “venture capital” investment (a strange term for originating in the state-controlled Chinese economy) going into the United States fell from its all-time high of $4.67 billion in 2018 to $2.57 billion last year;

>that the value of U.S. FDI made into the Chinese economy edged up sequentially last year, from $12.89 billion to $14.13 billion, but still remains well below its peak of $20.94 billion in 2008;

>and that the value of U.S. venture capital investment going into China plummeted from its all-time high of $19.57 billion in 2018 to $4.98 billion in last year.

Even if you’re not concerned about greater integration with a country that’s threatened cut off vital medical supplies to the United States during the current pandemic, or about the national security threat posed by Chinese access to defense- or surveillance- or hacking-related tech, this is great news for anyone valuing the benefits of free markets. For any participation by China’s state-controlled system in the U.S. economy can only distort the workings of free markets, and in particular, force U.S. businesses (which until the CCP Virus invaded needed to rely on private sources for their capital) to compete with Chinese rivals (which can rely on the Chinese treasury).

Rhodium’s research also found that Chinese investment flows into the United States plunged even further during the first quarter of this year (the first pandemic quarter) while U.S. flows into China remained pretty stable. But the pre-CCP Virus results are undoubtedly more revealing of the underlying longer-term trends.

Decoupling is proceeding even faster on the trade front. Last week’s monthly U.S. trade report from the Census Bureau (for March) showed that the two-way value of U.S.-China trade in goods (the sum of imports and exports) sank by 42.49 percent between the first quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2020. That’s the lowest quarterly level since the $72.16 billion level recorded for the first quarter of 2006.

More revealing, though: At that point, two-way goods trade represented 0.53 percent of the total U.S. economy. In the first quarter of 2020, the proportion was down to 0.35 percent.

Of course, the first quarter 2020 results have been distorted by the CCP Virus’ effects (and greater distortion surely lies ahead). More specifically, gross domestic product (GDP) decreased from the fourth quarter of last year to the first quarter of this year, and it grew a measly 2.10 percent before adjusting for inflation over the fourth quarter of 2019. (This and the following growth figures are different, and higher, than the growth figures featured in the most widely tracked GDP figures, which are adjusted for price changes. I’m using the pre-inflation GDP figures here because inflation-adjusted country-specific trade figures aren’t available.)

For more “normal” data, let’s check out the figures for the year preceding the fourth quarter of 2019. During that timespan, the value of two-way U.S.-China goods trade dropped by 19.48 percent – from $171.57 billion to $138.15 billion. But pre-inflation growth hit a solid 3.98 percent.

Slightly shifting the time periods examined produces the same pattern. Between the first quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, the value of two-way U.S.-China goods trade nosedived by 46.40 percent. In other words, it was cut nearly in half. Yet current dollar growth during that period hit 4.64 percent.

At this point, it’s necessary to point out that this big 2018-19 decline in the value of two-way goods trade came right on the heels of a huge 77.58 percent increase between 2017 and 2018. But this rise stemmed mainly from the major adjustments made by businesses on both sides of the Pacific – especially what’s called U.S. tariff “front-running” – to deal with President Trump’s steadily escalating increases in tariffs on imports from China.

The justification for confidence that, but for the virus’ impact, the New Normal in U.S.-China trade would be reflecting more decoupling comes from examining the trends before and after President Trump’s January, 2017 inauguration. From the time Mr. Trump entered office through the end of last year, the economy grew by a total of 13.23 percent. But the value of two-way bilateral goods trade became 0.32 percent higher. In other words, for all intents and purposes, it didn’t grow at all.

That marks a major turnaround from the eight years under former President Obama, when the only first-quarter-to-first-quarter shrinkage in two-way trade (7.35 percent, between 2015 and 2016) was accompanied by weak 2.45 percent GDP growth. Moreover the only Obama first-quarter-to-first-quarter period when strong GDP growth (5.14 percent) was accompanied by only relatively modest growth in two-way bilateral trade (5.28 percent) came between 2014 and 2015. For the rest of his term in office, the growth of two-way U.S.-China goods trade significantly topped the growth of the economy, before taking inflation into account.

One of the most important concepts in free market-oriented economics is that of trade-offs, often expressed with the phrase, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”  Decoupling America’s economy from China’s will no doubt entail further disruption and costs related to the inevitable inefficiencies of supply chain rejiggering.  But the U.S.’ ability to grow strongly even as its economic engagement with China shrivels adds to the evidence that this lunch, if not exactly free, is a terrific value.

Following Up: National Radio Podcast on China Trade Policy Now On-Line…& More!

Tags

CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, decoupling, economics, Following Up, free trade, Gordon G. Chang, IndustryToday.com, manufacturing, supply chains, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show.  Click here for a great and timely conversation with John and co-host Gordon G. Chang on how U.S. manufacturers are dealing with China during the current CCP Virus crisis – and how they keep decoupling from the People’s Republic.

Also, it was great to see IndustryToday.com re-post (with permission of course!) my Wednesday piece on how the dangers of doing business with China are greatly undermining the purely economic case for the freest possible global trade flows.  Read it at this link.

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