Following Up: The CCP Virus is Making the Case for Free Trade Look Ever Sicker

Tags

CBO, CCP Virus, China, Commerce Department, Congressional Budget Office, coronavirus, COVID 19, Financial Times, Following Up, free trade, GDP, Goldman Sachs, gross domestic product, Guggenheim, IMF, inflation-adjusted growth, International Monetary Fund, Morningstar, output gap, real GDP, Trade, Wuhan virus

A month ago, I put up a post claiming that the gargantuan economic losses stemming from the CCP Virus outbreak were shredding the standard economics case for free trade. Essentially, most economists have long insisted that the gains from trade always exceeded the losses that might be suffered by individual parts of the economy and their workers. (I purposely excluded the debate over whether more trade has exacted excessive non-economic costs, like eroded national security or more pollution.) Even better, the freest possible international trade flows would create enough additional wealth to permit generous compensation for these losers.

But I then documented that the virus-related hit to American economic output – which will clearly had stemmed from decades of freeing up trade and broader commerce with China – had already dwarfed the trade gains claimed even by cheerleaders for doing ever more business with the People’s Republic.

One month later, the China trade bonanza estimates haven’t gotten any better. But the projections of damage to the U.S. economy have greatly worsened.

My April 6 post cited two leading private sector forecasts of U.S. output losses for this year, measured in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) adjusted for inflation – Morningstar’s figure of $954 billion, and Goldman Sachs’ judgment of nearly $725 billion.

Since then, some official figures have been released, and most are bigger. For example, on April 29, the U.S. Commerce Department came out with its first read on real GDP for the first quarter of this year. Even though most of that January through March period preceded the onset of various shutdown orders across the nation, the Commerce statisticians still found that the economy shrank by 4.87 percent at an annual rate in price-adjusted terms. This means that if output kept falling at that rate for all of 2020, by year-end the economy would be $928.86 billion smaller than on New Year’s Day.

That’s still a smaller production plunge than estimated by Morningstar, but Commerce (as usual) never actually predicted that the drop-off would remain constant. Its annualized figures are simply notional.

A few days before, the Congressional Budget Office did engage in some prediction. Its expectation of constant-dollar GDP decline in 2020 was $1.27789 trillion. The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) expectation for the U.S. economy was pretty similar – a $1.1253 trillion slump in inflation-adjusted U.S. GDP.   

As also noted in last month’s post, though, virtually everyone agrees that CCP Virus-induced damage will continue beyond 2020, and the way most economists try to quantify such losses is by calculating what they call an output gap. It’s an effort to specify how much lower output will be over a period of time as a result of a shock like the virus compared with how an economy would have performed had the shock never taken place.

The last time a major output gap-estimating exercise took place was in the aftermath of the Great Recession – caused by a shock resulting from the bursting of closely related credit and housing bubbles. As shown by the chart below (originally published in the Financial Times), a team at Guggenheim investments at least consider the gap to have started in 2010 (the first year after the recovery is generally thought to have started) at about $750 billion (according to my eyeballs). Thankfully, it proceeded to shrunk steadily thereafter. But the bad news is that it shrunk so slowly that the lost growth wasn’t made up for until 2018 – eight years later.

Nevertheless, if the Guggenheim economists are right, that output gap literally was nothing compared with the one that CCP Virus’ outbreak will open up. It starts this year at about $2.7 trillion (again, as my eyeballs see it) after factoring in price changes, and it closes at a rate no faster than that seen during the last economic recovery – which was historically sluggish. In other words, the decision to free up trade with China could cost the United States economy trillions of dollars of lost growth year after year for the foreseeable future.   

Maybe during this period, someone or some organization will come up with a study of the gains to America from freer trade with China that will claim purely economic benefits orders of magnitude greater than previously judged. In order to preserve a serious case that such trade expansion has turned out satisfactorily for the United States, they’ll have to.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Meanwhile, Back at the Tech Wars….

Tags

5G, China, Financial Times, Forbes, free trade, globalization, Huawei, Mainstream Media, national security, offshoring, offshoring lobby, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, semiconductors, tech, telecommunications, telecoms, Trade, Trump

Free trade extremists who haven’t been shocked into reality by America’s dangerous levels of dependence on health care goods imports from Chinese and other foreign suppliers (i.e., many of them) just got another whack by a two-by-four from Beijing.

Hot on the heels of a Chinese threat to embargo exports to the United States of pharmaceuticals and drug ingredients needed to fight the CCP Virus has come a new Chinese warning – that American efforts to restrict U.S. and other foreign supplies of semiconductors, other crucial electronic components, and software needed by its telecommunications giant Huawei could trigger “counter-measures” that would damage the U.S. tech sector and the American and broader global economies.

The bad news here is that, just as with the Chinese economy overall with many medicines and their ingredients, government-controlled Huawei has seized world leadership in much of the hardware needed to build next-generation 5G communications systems – which of course have already begun to be installed worldwide. Since state-of-the-art communications is crucial both to economic prosperity and national security, Huawei’s success has triggered alarm bells even among many American leaders who were long happy to support the reckless U.S. trade and related tech policies that enabled China to steal and extort much of the knowhow that build Beijing’s tech sector – and looked the other way as American firms voluntarily transferred much of the rest.  (See here for an especially revealing partial account of this tech policy disaster.)

But there’s good news, too. First, U.S.-headquartered companies still hold what a Financial Times article shows are “strategic chokepoints on Huawei’s phones, from the Android operating system to RF front-end chips and the chip architectures by Arm Holdings….” (To be sure, however, this Huawei dependence is shrinking.)

Second, as reported here in Forbes, Huawei’s overall sales performance outside its home market has been so weak that it’s now “completely dependent on China for its growth.” And thanks to the worldwide recession triggered by the pandemic that of course began in China, and because of continuing national security-driven reluctance by foreign governments to give Huawei free rein in their own markets, the entity’s overseas troubles are likely to intensify. (Note: Because of pervasive Chinese state control, RealityChek refuses to call outfits like Huawei “companies” or “businesses,” as such terms suggest great common ground with enterprises in largely free-market economies.)

At the same time, let’s not whistle in the dark here.  The trade and broader globalization policies responsible for these economic and national security vulnerabilities were pushed so hard so successfully for so long by pre-Trump Presidents and Congresses, that digging out of the present hole will require even more outside-the-box thinking than even the current administration has contemplated. And its task isn’t being made any easier by the efforts of the corporate Offshoring Lobby, its political and think tank hired guns, and the Mainstream Media journalists who still slavishly follow their cues, to yank the country back to globalization business-as-usual.      

Im-Politic: Bloomberg in China’s Pocket?

Tags

China, election 2020, Financial Times, Im-Politic, Ivanka Trump, Laura Ingraham, Michael Bloomberg, Michael Kranish, Trump, Washington Post, Xi JInPing

Boy! I thought Michael Bloomberg’s business’ dependence on China was worrisome when I first read this early January Financial Times report on the billionaire Democratic presidential candidate’s lucrative conference-holding business in the People’s Republic!

Then thanks to a segment last week on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News cable talk show, I checked out this Washington Post piece on the same subject – which I somehow missed – and I’ve gotten even more worried. And since Bloomberg has been rising steadily in the polls in recent weeks, and is spending a big chunk of his fortune on the campaign, you should be worried, too.

Now I know what at least some of you are thinking: President Trump and his family have done a lot of business with China, too. So why single out the former New York City mayor?

Here’s why: First, I strongly agreed that it was unacceptable for presidential daughter Ivanka Trump to stay involved in any way with her fashion business after her father’s election, especially since it sourced products from China and sought to sell in the Chinese market. She finally agreed with this (widespread) view and shut down the brand in mid-2018. So that’s one big difference between the Trumps and Bloomberg, since the latter is still making big bucks in China.

More important, though – with Trump tariffs still in place on literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of prospective Chinese exports to the United States, and the President having made life tough for China in numerous other major ways ranging from prosecuting telecommunications giant Huawei to strongly supporting Taiwan in word and deed, can anyone seriously believe that Mr. Trump has been soft on Beijing?

Bloomberg, by contrast, clearly has, and his record of panda-hugging is not only several years old, but has continued unabated during his run for the White House. The aforementioned Post article spells out in detail the pro-China positions he’s taken, which include opposition to the Trump tariffs (without explaining how he’d deal with Chinese trade abuses he’s acknowledged) and the insistence that China’s communist leader Xi Jinping “is not a dictator” (made as Beijing was cracking down on Hong Kong’s democracy protests and imprisoning on a massive, concentration camp-like scale members of the country’s Muslim Uighur minority group.

And when his ongoing business dealings with the Chinese are examined in detail, it’s easy to see why Bloomberg has worked so hard to remain in Beijing’s good graces. For example, as the Post reported, Bloomberg ”expanded one of his company’s financial indexes, which could steer $150 billion into China while earning his firm an undisclosed amount in fees.”

In effect, this move awarded the Chinese government and the various commercial and financial entities it controls a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval valued immensely by big institutional investors who control trillions of dollars worth of savings around the world.

Moreover, according to Post reporter Michael Kranish, “mainland China accounts for 1 percent of Bloomberg LP’s [$10 billion in annual] revenue and Hong Kong for another 4 percent.”

As for those China conferences, the Financial Times revealed that

“live events now make up nearly 15 per cent of all revenues for the news division that sits within the billionaire’s financial data company.

“This has grown from less than 1 per cent in 2014, thanks largely to the success of one event: the New Economy Forum. Mr Bloomberg launched the conference last year, aimed at connecting global business leaders with the Chinese elite.

“Only in its second year, the NEF already makes up about 65 per cent of all live events revenue for Bloomberg Media, according to a spokesperson.”

And if you still doubt China’s importance to Bloomberg’s coffers, consider that, as Kranish wrote, Bloomberg “has led efforts since 2015 to make it easier for U.S. companies to trade in Chinese currency, a move embraced by China’s largest banks” – which are of course all run by the state.

Bloomberg’s successes in public opinion surveys anyway has led to charges that he’s trying to buy the presidency. At least equally important to ask is whether the Chinese have bought Bloomberg.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Vital Globalization Lesson from South Korea

Tags

China, Financial Times, industrial policy, Japan, self-sufficiency, South Korea, technology, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As Americans continue debating the merits of remaining dependent on supplies of key products from China (including state-of-the-art 5G telecommunications technology), a great example of why self-sufficiency can be crucial – along with laying adequate groundwork – has just come from an economy much smaller than the United States’ and capable of standing on its own in many fewer areas: South Korea.

In fairness, never during its remarkable rise from deep impoverishment and war-time devastation has South Korea bought the basic principle underlying the generally open trade (and investment) policies that have shaped the global economy throughout the post-World War II era. That is, its leaders have never been willing to prioritize worldwide efficiency by permitting market forces to determine which of their industries would excel.

Indeed, South Korea has been one of the world’s most hermetically sealed economies and hasn’t even been able to cite legitimate national security concerns for its approach. After all, it’s been staunchly defended by the United States for decades – even enjoying the presence of American military tripwire units aimed at forcing, to the greatest extent possible, Washington to risk nuclear attack on the American homeland in Seoul’s defense.

Recently, however, South Korea encountered an economic threat that it – understandably – concluded posed unacceptable risks to the high tech industries that have created so much of its prosperity. Because of a dispute centering on from compensation for atrocities committed by Japan during its long-time colonial rule over South Korea, Japan in July cut South Korean tech companies off from supplies of three chemicals needed to make numerous key products, including semiconductors and advanced displays (computer and TV screens). Japan also removed South Korea from its list of countries enjoying preferential trade status.

And as the Financial Times reported last week, in response, Seoul has decided not simply to accept that Japan’s curbs would surely reduce the competitiveness of its tech sector, and to leave to the subsequent workings of market forces to determine what types of activity would dominate its economy – and determine its fate. Instead, it’s decided to build up its own capabilities in electronic inputs in order to reduce its vulnerabilities to even broader restrictions that Japan might impose as long as this bilateral trade war lasts – and surely in order to cut its exposure to similar potential threats from elsewhere.

According to the Financial Times, “Seoul plans to invest more than Won 5tn between 2020 and 2022 in research and development, in an attempt to localise about 100 different components and materials in the next five years. South Korea has also said it will provide tax breaks, cut red tape and encourage co-operation between big companies and their small suppliers to accelerate the localisation process.”

Nor is South Korea’s government is unlikely to pay much heed to any whining about short-term cost pain from consumers or companies elsewhere in these high tech supply chains. Its officials “stress the importance of diversification. ‘Cost savings is no longer the best thing for our companies. Risk hedging has become much more important.’”

And Seoul seems completely unimpressed with the warnings from conventional economists, like the one who stated “No country can be fully self-sufficient. Focusing on local substitutes only can bring more negative side effects. They may end up having to buy expensive local parts and materials although they can be easily sourced abroad at cheaper prices.”

For the South Korean government understands that Japan’s cutoffs mean that vital parts and materials may not always, or often enough “be easily sourced abroad at cheaper prices” – or at any prices.

Moreover, although it’s no doubt true, as the article contends, that South Korea is behind Japan technologically, Seoul’s drive for greater self-sufficiency is no pipe dream. For the country has built impressive enough technological wherewithal to endow these policies with a solid foundation. Indeed, there’s considerable evidence that decades of “Korea First” industrialization policies have been keys to the South’s long record of rapid gains in global technological competitiveness.

Not that South Korea has an easy row to hoe, as this piece indicates. But here’s where we come to the lessons for the United States: Despite longstanding and offshoring-friendly trade and globalization policies, it remains the global technology leader and therefore boasts advantages that dwarf South Korea’s – or any other country’s. Even better, it’s developed a tried and true formula for fostering world-class innovation, in high tech industries ranging from pharmaceuticals (think “National Institutes of Health”) to aerospace and software and information technology (think “Pentagon”).

In other words, the United States has more than enough “wallet” to overcome the technology threat posed by China, or any other possible rivals – though the Trump administration’s industrial policy initiatives could stand considerable improvement. But the President’s China trade policies show that, for the first time in decades, the United States has a leader with the will.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufactured Bad News About Trump’s Manufacturing Record

Tags

Barack Obama, Financial Times, Great Recession, manufacturing, real value-added, recovery, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

So here I was, planning to spend a nice, quiet, blogging-free day on this Fourth of July, when some casual web surfing revealed that the Financial Times, a newspaper I genuinely respect, runs an article besmirching President Trump’s record on reviving manufacturing. And it did so in an unusually intellectually dishonest way.

The Times‘ news coverage usually plays it straight on Trump-ian issues like trade and manufacturing, however vehemently its editorial page opposes the President’s stances. But in its review today of the current U.S. economic recovery (which this month became the longest in American history), it claimed that “The relative weakness of the current economic expansion is owing to the underperformance of the manufacturing sector.”

Fair enough. But then came this contention:

“Despite Mr Trump’s rhetoric in the 2016 election campaign about sparking a revival in the traditional industrial regions of the US, this expansion has been overwhelmingly based on services, which were responsible for two-thirds of the increase in value added from 2009 to 2018.”

And that swipe was completely inexcusable. Perhaps worse – it’s transparently and incompetently inexcusable. Because Donald J. Trump wasn’t President for most of the current recovery, which began in the middle of 2009.

In fact, when you look at the relative performance of manufacturing under Mr. Trump, and under his predecessor, Barack Obama, it becomes embarrassingly clear that industry through 2018 (the latest data year examined by the Times – and naturally so, since it’s the last full year for which statistics are available) has fared much better in the Trump years, and made a far greater growth contribution. Here are the numbers.

Between 2009 and 2018, in terms of real value-added (the measure of output properly used in the Times article), the U.S. economy grew by $3.3576 trillion. Manufacturing production increased by just over $300 billion. So industry only contributed 8.94 percent of the growth during this period.

But then break down these developments by administration, and…what a difference! Under President Trump, starting in 2017 and running through 2018, the total economy in real value-added terms expanded by $907.2 billion. Manufacturing’s contribution totaled $140.5 billion – or 15.49 percent.

During the 2009 through 2016 Obama period, total real value-added increased by $2.4504 trillion. Manufacturing’s contribution was $159.7 billion – or 6.52 percent. That’s way less than half of its contribution during the Trump years.

Moreover, nearly 61 percent of manufacturing’s growth during the Obama administration took place in a single year – 2009-10. That’s when industry engineered a strong comeback from a near-death experience during the Great Recession. In other words, once the economy regained something like a normal footing, annual manufacturing growth slowed practically to a standstill.

Another way to illustrate manufacturing’s out-performance during the Trump years. In 2016, in standstill terms, manufacturing real value-added represented 11.29 percent of after-inflation gross domestic product. Fueling 15.49 percent of the economy’s overall inflation-adjusted growth over the next two years is what’s known as “punching above your weight.”

In 2008, manufacturing real value-added accounted for 12.94 percent of the total economy in constant dollar terms on a standstill basis. And from then through 2016, it fueled 6.52 percent of total price-adjusted growth. That’s known as “punching below your weight.:

Is American manufacturing today “Great Again?” In my view, it’s clear it’s got a long way to go (and no more so than in reducing its gargantuan, chronic trade deficit, a key measure of global competitiveness). Moreover, so far this year, domestic industry has gone through a tougher slog. In fact, since July, 2017, after-inflation domestic manufacturing production has been down on net – which means that it’s been in recession. (And which also means I should have caught that development when the last Federal Reserve industrial production figures – for May – came out. So apologies for that oversight.)

But even a poor full 2019 for manufacturing could still leave the Trump record considerably better than Obama’s. And for the time period examined by the Times, despite the impression it tried to leave, there’s simply no contest. In fact, you could call the report manufactured news.

And before I forget:  Happy Birthday, America!

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Laughable Indictment of Trump’s World Bank Choice

Tags

David Malpass, economic development, Financial Times, globalism, multilateralism, third world, Trump, World Bank, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I was going to post this morning on more implications of yesterday’s new monthly U.S. trade figures, but as so often happens, the Mainstream Media has just come out with an article whose mind-boggling cluelessness reveals such deep-seated biases that I had to switch gears. Special bonus – it didn’t even come from a mainstay of the establishmentarian U.S. foreign policy and globalization Blob. Instead, we have the Financial Times editorial board to thank.

What other conclusion can be reasonably drawn from the FT editorial slamming President Trump’s appointment of David Malpass to head the World Bank?

Not that Malpass has been God’s Gift to Economics or to the cause of third world economic development. But according to the FT, a big problem with Malpass is that he lacks the leadership experience as well as intellectual and often political heft of previous U.S. choices like – wait for it – Robert S. McNamara.

That’s right – the same Robert McNamara who deserves such blame for the American disaster in Vietnam. What’s next for the FT? Criticizing Mr. Trump for appointing a senior military adviser lacking the battlefield genius of George Armstrong Custer?

Almost as bad: What’s given the FT editorialists the idea that McNamara, or any of his pre-Malpass successors, was such a whiz at the Bank? Here’s an appraisal of McNamara’s tenure arguing that he unintentionally created “incentives for Bank staff and management to push money out the door, sometimes with relatively little regard for how it would be used—a practice that still bedevils the Bank’s work today.” And this was from an admirer.

A second major FT argument against Malpass looks more reasonable at first glance:

“His judgment even on economics, his supposed speciality, is wanting. Notoriously, as then chief economist at Bear Stearns, Mr Malpass was blithely confident about the strength of the US economy in 2007 — a year before the global financial crisis hit and his own employer went under.”

What the FT conveniently forgets, though, is that using this standard would rule out virtually every economist in the world as World Bank president.  

Considerably stronger is the FT‘s observation that “As early as 2011 [Malpass] suggested tightening monetary policy and driving up the dollar, a hard-money philosophy entirely at odds with the reality that the Fed had averted economic disaster.”

The problem with this school of thought is that, although the Federal Reserve’s flooding of the American economy with easy money may have been necessary to keep the nation (and world) afloat, it’s also arguably created a global addiction to super-cheap credit that’s kneecapped chances of restoring genuine long-run economic health.

As contended by no less an economic authority than Lawrence Summers (a former World Bank research chief), the result has been “secular stagnation” – the inability of the United States or other major countries to grow acceptably without inflating lending and spending bubbles that are doomed to burst disastrously.

As the editorial makes clear, the FT mainly objects to Malpass because he’s “deeply sceptical of multilateral institutions.” Which would be funny even if the FT itself didn’t describe the Bank as already “dysfunctional” – despite being led by McNamara and all his supposedly genius successors.

More fundamentally, all else equal, why should anyone lack skepticism about any means to an end? Worshiping multilateralism is like worshiping a hammer. Sometimes is the best tool to use; sometimes it’s not.

The FT reasonably argues that “With an increasing number of rival sources of development finance — not to mention private capital — the bank needs to think hard about where it can best add value.” The paper just as reasonably concludes that effecting change requires its president “to be a critical friend of multilateralism who recognises that its institutions need to be adapted to a changing world, not an instinctive ideological enemy.”

But given that these – and other – problems with the Bank have persisted for so long, it’s hard to imagine that a leader accepted by multilateral fetishists like the FT would generate the necessary push.

As a result, the Malpass nomination can just as reasonably be viewed as a Trump administration attempt to change the kind of losing game coddled for so long by diehard multilateralists like the FT editorial board. Such critics should exhibit a little more humility before writing him off as a sure failure. Not to mention minimal historical memory. 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Mainstream U.S. Trade Policy’s Main Rationale Has Just Been Blown Up

Tags

Bill Clinton, BRICS, China, emerging markets, EMs, Financial Times, globalization, Jim O'Neill, multinational companies, offshoring, Project-Syndicate.org, Sherrod Brown, The Race to the Bottom, Trade, trade agreements, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I’m always struck by how often in the news media or policy writing (e.g., in journals like Foreign Affairs), genuinely game-changing points are made in passing, and for folks with any interest in the trade and globalization issues raised to such prominence by President Trump. And two such instances dealing with this subject just came in the Financial Times newspaper and the website Project-Syndicate.org.

The observation they both made with mind-boggling offhandedness – economic growth in countries dubbed “emerging markets” (EMs) is slowing to rates no faster than those of the rest of the world, and thus rendering them incapable as far as the eye can see of replacing the United States as a global growth engine.

This claim matters decisively for trade policy because these EMs have dominated America’s approach in this field for more than two decades. First identified in the early 1990s, they consist of economies in the developing world that not only boasted enormous populations. But largely because communism and a heavy state role in economic policy had been so thoroughly discredited due to the end of the Cold War, they were steadily transitioning to more free market approaches, and thus were seen to have huge growth potential. China and Mexico were the leading examples, but various definitions of the main emerging markets also included India, Brazil, Russia, Turkey, South Africa, and others.

According to trade enthusiasts, this combination of characteristics was going to make the EMs so important that accessing their vast current consumer markets and even greater consuming and importing potential needed to be Washington’s top trade priority. Their significance was portrayed as all the more important given America’s status as a “maturing” economy whose growth was bound to continue slowing. (Former President Bill Clinton used exactly this term while advocating for an emerging markets push in a document that’s not on-line but that’s cited in my book on globalization, The Race to the Bottom. The document was the 1995 Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program and it was published by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative at the start of 1996.)    

Yet however impressive and promising they seemed, the idea was a crock from the beginning – at least in terms of its importance in driving American trade policy for the foreseeable future. EM cheerleading suffered two fatal flaws. First, despite rapid growth and immense growth potential, the emerging markets were starting from such low bases – especially in terms of their populations’ consuming power – that they wouldn’t become significant markets in absolute terms for many years at best. Second, precisely because they remained so poor and under-developed, their governments invariably realized that their own best growth opportunities came from exporting to much wealthier countries like the United States – where the needed consumption power already existed.

So why the EMs euphoria? As documented exhaustively in The Race to the Bottom, the multinational corporations that dominated American trade policy-making never saw the emerging markets as final consumption markets. They viewed them as super low-cost production bases from which they could supply the U.S. market much more profitably than possible from their domestic factories. Which is exactly why, starting with the pursuit of trade expansion with Mexico at the onset of the 1990s, American trade policy almost exclusively targeted the emerging markets and other very low-income countries (like Vietnam and the countries of Central America) for negotiating new trade deals.

Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (a possible 2020 Democratic presidential contender) described the multinationals sales pitch to leading EM China somewhat too charitably when he said in 2015, “while walking the halls of Congress, [lobbyists for the multinationals] talked about they wanted access to 1 billion Chinese customers. What they didn’t say is they also wanted access to 1 billion potential Chinese workers.”

As The Race to the Bottom also made clear, EM touting was star-crossed from the start – even embarrassingly so. As it peaked, in the mid-1990s, many of these same countries started experiencing problems that led to major financial crises even before the decade ended. That is, their markets became evaporating, not emerging, and in numerous cases they kept afloat only by cheapening their currencies, limiting their own consumption and importing still further, and making them more powerful exporters than ever.

Yet the multinationals’ power and influence remained so decisive throughout America’s political (and media) establishment that emerging markets hucksterism continued to justify trade agreements with such countries. Hence the continued repetition of wholly misleading contentions like “95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States” (which I debunked here).

So that’s why I was so interested to see the following in a Financial Times blog post – and by no less than a former senior official at the International Monetary Fund and another leading international economic institution:  

“EM growth has slowed to about 4.5 per cent at present….In the long run, according to the OECD, the potential growth rate of the Briics (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South Africa — accounting for most of EM GDP) is expected to slow further, converging to mature market trend growth of 2 per cent. In other words, the growth advantage of more than 4 percentage points that EMs enjoyed over mature markets in the 2000-2010 period has narrowed to about 2 percentage points and will probably disappear in the long run.”

And guess what? Unlike in the United States, in particular, even much of this EM growth will rely on maximizing exports and minimizing imports. So their importance as markets for American-made goods and services will be even less impressive than this impeccably mainstream analyst suggests.

Equally startling: This Project-Syndicate column by Jim O’Neill. O’Neill, for the unitiated, was perhaps the highest profile EM cheerleader, and coined a popular acronym for those economies that described those he believed most promising: BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa).

The former Goldman Sachs banker has remained a believer in China, and has actually added some countries to his list of economies he believes will loom much larger in this century. But in the column, he also argued that, if China falters in what he (wrongly, in my view) considers its role as a global growth engine, and the American consumer gets tapped out, none of the other emerging economies “is in a position to match the growth of Chinese consumption today, or even over the course of the next decade.” And by extension, the likelihood of these countries replacing the United States is even more infinitesimal.

Former French leader Charles de Gaulle once famously said that “Brazil is the country of the future…and always will be.” The two examples above show that the same solidly grounded skepticism is also finally seeping into the ranks of globalization cheerleaders. How long will it take before the American political, business, academic, and media establishments finally start paying attention?

Glad I Didn’t Say That! U.S. Automakers Debunk Their Own Tariff Fear-Mongering

Tags

automotive, China tariffs, FCA, Financial Times, General Motors, Glad I Didn't Say That!, metals tariffs, msn.com, Patti Waldmeir, tariffs, Trade, trade war

“The auto industry…fears that new tariffs, on top of those already enacted on Chinese-made vehicles and imported aluminum and steel, could have a major negative impact on the American new car market.”

–MSN.com, November 18, 2018

 

General Motors’ “head of US sales, said on Thursday: ‘We feel confident heading into 2019 because we have more major truck and crossover launches coming during the year and the US economy is strong.’”

–Financial Times, January 3, 2019

 

FCA’s head of US sales “also predicted a ‘solid’ 2019, attributing the company’s strength in 2018 to ‘the efforts we undertook to realign our production to give US consumers more Jeep vehicles and Ram pick-up trucks.’”

–Financial Times, January 3, 2019

 

(Sources “Hit hard by trade war, automakers hoping Trump will hold off on new round of tariffs,” Money, MSN.com, November 18, 2018, https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/hit-hard-by-trade-war-automakers-hoping-trump-will-hold-off-on-new-round-of-tariffs/ar-BBPOjRn & “US car sales defied predictions of a slowdown in 2018,” by Patti Waldmeir, Financial Times, January 3, 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/e538e316-0f52-11e9-a3aa-118c761d2745)

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: The Saudis May Be Killing Globalism as a U.S. Strategy, Too

Tags

Council on Foreign Relations, Financial Times, globalism, Jamal Khashoggi, Mohammed bin Salman, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Richard Haass, Saudi Arabia

Here’s the latest noteworthy indication that (1) the globalist approach that dominated U.S. foreign policy during the pre-Trump decades is dissolving into not only incoherence but transparent virtue-signaling; and that (2) the apparent murder of Saudi journalist (and legal U.S. resident) Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of thugs linked to the Saudi monarchy is turning into a big contributor:  It’s a Financial Times essay from no less than Richard N. Haass, who is nothing less than the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is nothing less than the world’s premier globalist think tank.

For good measure, Haass has also held senior positions in both Bush administrations and, if a mainstream, pre-Trump-style Republican ever wins the White House again, would be a likely Secretary of State or national security advisor candidate. (Full disclosure – he also preceded me at Roslyn High School on New York’s Long Island by two years, but we moved in different circles.)

Haass’ subject was no surprise. The Mainstream Media and bipartisan globalist national foreign policy establishment evidently views the Khashoggi affair as the most important story of the day. And week. And month. And possibly year.

What was striking, though, was the completely confused nature of Haass’ recommendations, and in particular, how he struggled – ultimately unsuccessfully – to reconcile the peer pressure he obviously felt to urge a (seemingly) tough U.S. response to Khashoggi’s demise, and his own convictions as a card-carrying globalist that because of the United States’ still-vital interests in the Middle East, Washington has no choice but to view Saudi Arabia’s ultimately as one of those distasteful regimes that the United States nonetheless needs as an ally.

In fact, Haass explicitly recognizes the dilemma thereby created:

“The choices facing the US and other governments are not easy. They are the latest example of the foreign policy predicament of having to deal with flawed leaders of important countries. Principle and interests inevitably collide, as they often did during the cold war and when it came to dealing with the Shah’s Iran in the 1970s.”

And he tries to make the case for “doing something” significant in coolly unsentimental terms:

“The war in Yemen, arguably Saudi Arabia’s Vietnam, is a humanitarian and strategic disaster. MbS’s [Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] effort to destabilise Qatar has weakened a country that is home to the principal US military base in the region. There was also the bizarre kidnapping and detention of Lebanon’s prime minister in 2017. And the Saudis failed to bring Israelis and Palestinians together. Moreover, the fate of Mr Khashoggi will make it much more difficult to line up international support to pressure Iran. Riyadh will appear to many to be at least as much of a problem as Tehran.”

But what is the “something” that Haass believes will thread the policy needle and make clear to the royal family that “US and western support for [MbS] cannot be taken for granted?” “Distinguishing” between MbS and the rest of the Saudi monarchy. Dropping him from any White House invite lists. A “reconsideration” by American businesses of (all? some?) “partnering” with the government in Riyadh as long as MbS is in charge. “Constraints on the [Saudi] use of American-supplied military equipment and intelligence” especially for the “misguided war in Yemen.” But on efforts to counter Islamic extremists? The Iranians? Heaven only knows.

Additionally, Haass wants Western governments to press publicly “for an independent and unconstrained investigation of what happened in Istanbul.”

Sadly, however, these measures either amount to transparent bupkis, or steps that – if Haass’ words are taken at face value – could easily endanger interests that Haas and nearly all other globalists have long regarded as crucial for the United States. But it’s far from clear that these proposals should be taken at face value, or anywhere close. In fact, Haass himself argues that President Trump is correct in noting that Saudi Arabia

“is an important and valuable ally that buys significant amounts of arms, is helpful in Syria and in the fight against terrorism, and is a partner versus Iran. Saudi Arabia still produces about one out of every 10 barrels of oil in the world. Its investments are large and important to a number of businesses and projects.”

Hence this point which, for all the above analytical meandering, seems to be Haass bottom line: “[I]t could prove counter-productive and risky to call for the departure of [MbS], who enjoys broad popularity at home. The alternative to him is not clear. Broad instability would serve the interests of no one.”

Of course the Saudis will focus on these sentences above all others. But at least Haass – like other posturing globalists – has achieved the only objectives that could logically explain this exercise in internal contradiction: He preserves his globalist-in-good-standing status. And he’s signaled his supposed virtue.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trump Metals Tariffs Coverage has Just (Again) Been Exposed as Largely Fake News

Tags

ABC News, aluminum, Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, CNN, durable goods, Financial Times, Jobs, Mainstream Media, manufacturing, Marketwatch.com, metals, metals-using industries, NBC News, PBS, private sector, Reuters, steel, tariffs, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, Trump, Washington Post, {What's Left of) Our Economy

In case you still think that President Trump’s charges of fake news-peddling by the national news media are fake news themselves, consider this: For the second time in two months, if you decided to hold your breath till you found a Mainstream Media item reporting that the America’s metals-using industries have been major job-creation leaders, not laggards, you’d have died.

Such omissions are especially important because since the Trump administration began imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports (in March), the media has been filled not only with predictions of massive employment and production losses in metals-using manufacturing (because the prices of two noteworthy inputs for these industries was bound to rise), but with accounts of actual economic damage that numerous companies in these sectors have already suffered. (See here and here for just two examples.) 

Last month, I noted that, for all these accounts, authoritative government data (through June) showed that the metals-using industries’ performance by both measures had both generally improved, and had indeed both generally improved more than job creation and output in the rest of manufacturing.

Since then, more steel and aluminum tariffs were put in place (mainly because some major U.S. trade partners initially exempted from the tariffs were subjected to the levies). And what did we learn from the newest jobs report, which was released last Friday, and took the story through July (on a preliminary basis)? That the metals-using industries continue to set the national job-creation pace for the entire economy, not simply for manufacturing.

Here are the percentage gains for employment in some major sectors of the economy from April (the first month during which any metals tariffs effects would have been felt) through July except for the industries noted:

entire private sector: +0.53 percent

overall manufacturing: +0.73 percent

durable goods: +0.96 percent

fabricated metals products: +1.10 percent

non-electrical machinery: +1.43 percent

automotive vehicles & parts: +1.06 percent

household appliances (thru June): -0.63 percent

aerospace products & parts (thru June): +1.05 percent

Unfortunately, it was not possible to learn any of this from America’s leading news organizations. For these figures were completely ignored.

To their credit, some leading media mentioned that Trump tariffs and trade war fears in general seemed to be having no effect on manufacturing job creation overall despite industry’s exposure in principle to the fall-out. These included the Associated Press, The New York Times, the Financial Times, CNN, ABC News, and NBC News. Yet the metals-using sectors were never mentioned.

As for The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and CBS News, they made no connection of the tariff/trade war-manufacturing job connection whatever.

And several news organizations actually tried to rationalize the unexpected results. Reuters, for example, claimed that “With manufacturing payrolls increasing by the most in seven months, the moderation in hiring reported by the Labor Department on Friday likely does not reflect the rising trade tensions between the United States and other nations including China.”

According to PBS, “Economists say it is too early to tell whether the Trump administration’s tariffs on imported steel and aluminum are having a significant effect on manufacturing jobs.”

Bloomberg and Marketwatch.com weren’t as disingenuous, but still felt compelled to contend that rising trade tensions continued to cast a long shadow on the job markets’ future – without reporting that, if anything, new U.S. policies and statements were so far having exactly the opposite effect on parts of the economy most exposed to existing metals tariffs.

But no account of press coverage of these Trump trade policies would be complete without observing an equally weird development: Neither the President nor anyone else in his administration has pointed to the outperformance of the metals-using industries, either.

In a little over a week, the nation will get its next major opportunity to gauge the impact of metals and other tariffs, and future possibilities thereof – when the Federal Reserve releases the July industrial production data, which includes detailed statistics on inflation-adjusted manufacturing output. Will the Mainstream Media finally zero in on the sectors where the tariff rubber hits the road? At this rate, Americans should be grateful if they simply ended the string of job loss and other Chicken Little metals tariff impact stories.