(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Getting American Competition Priorities Right

Tags

American Affairs, anti-trust policy, competition, globalization, monopoly oligopoly, National Conservatism Conference, tariffs, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Greetings from Miami, Florida, where I’m attending the final day of the third annual National Conservatism conference. (I spoke on Sunday.) I’ll be posting soon about my general impressions of this event, and the broader effort it represents to develop a new school of right-of-center policies and politics. But since today’s early afternoon sessions aren’t my speed, I’m back in the (cavernous!) hotel room because I thought folks would be interested in seeing a lightly edited version of the remarks I delivered.

The subject – the often weird and arguably counterproductive views long held by most U.S. leaders, along with the national policy and business establishments, about the different priorities deserved by promoting economic competition at home, and economic competition from abroad. In addition, I should note that the conference organizers plan to post videos of this and other presentations very soon, and I’ll send out an alert when it’s up. For more background, see this article in the journal American Affairs from 2019, when I first made versions of the following observations and arguments:

There seems to be broad agreement at this conference that the U.S. economy should undergo some kind of transformation from one that’s extremely open to the world economy – to all of its opportunities and benefits as well as all of its risks and dangers – to one that’s less open (because those risks and dangers don’t seem to have been accounted for adequately).

I’m sure that there’s also broad agreement that a major obstacle stands in the way – that very considerable degree of recent and current openness, which becomes clear from examining data like the strong rise of trade (both exports and imports) as a share of the nation’s economic output, the similarly strong rise of two way both outgoing and incoming investment, and the amount of U.S. net debt held by foeign lenders. It’s also clear from what we’ve been learning lately about how dependent the nation has become on other countries for lots of goods that are crucial economically and militarily and healthcare-wise.

Almost completely overlooked though is another major obstacle – an apparent belief that’s powerfully fueled all that openness, and helped create the costs and vulnerabilities that have been neglected for o long. It’s the apparent belief that foreign competition is better for the economy than domestic competition.

I say “apparent” because this view isn’t often voiced. But something like it must be broadly accepted, especially by those who have been making national economic policy. Because for decades, until very recently (the year 1980 is a good starting point) U.S. leaders have worked especially hard to open the American economy wide to foreign competition (through numerous international trade agreements) while simultaneously permitting levels of domestic competition to fall quite significantly in a great many industries.

And it’s difficult to understand how a much more self-reliant American System can be created if the prioritization of foreign over domestic competition isn’t reversed. That is, if there’s a strong consensus – as there seems to be – that vigorous competition is needed to maximize the benefits of capitalism (notably, to spur technological progress, better product quality, more affordability, greater choice of stuff to buy), then the emphasis should be placed on boosting domestic, rather than foreign, competition.

For those seeking to limit the U.S. economy’s exposure to the global economy, the rationale for stressing an increase in foreign competition seems to have two sources that are two sides of the same coin – at least as best as I can figure out, since again, the case for actively preferring it is seldom made explicitly. The first is that since competition is good, the more the merrier. Therefore boosting foreign competition is an obvious way to get more competition.

The second reason for emphasizing foreign competition is that it’s simply not possible to generate needed levels of competition without foreign competition.

But regarding the first rationale – just how much more competition does foreign competition create for the U.S.? If we’re a fourth of global output, does that mean that foreign competition can triple the level of competition? Or twice as much, or 72 percent more, or whatever? Maybe. What I can say confidently, though, isthat no one has even asked that question, let alone answered it. But the assumption seems dubious given that much the three-fourths of that global economy outside the U.S. is less advanced than we are, not more.

And as for foreign competition filling some unavoidable domestic competition gap – that may be true for many other countries. But it’s far from true for the United States. After all, we have advanced technology. We have manufacturing. We have services. We have energy and minerals. We have agriculture. We still have dynamic, innovation-fostering economic and social systems. .In other words, to borrow from that Michael Jackson song, “We are the world.” We have satisfactory supplies of petty muc every type of product and service that the rest of the world boasts all together.

That is, we have a matchless degree of self-sufficiency and capacity for self-sufficiency – despite having spent much of the last half-century or more trying our best to squander this priceless advantage. We don’t have tropical fruit. Or coffee. Or chocolate. But I think we can figure those challenges out.

It’s true of course that the transition toward a less globalized American economy isn’t a short-term proposition. And it probably will never result in 100 percent self-sufficiency – at least not in the foreseeable future.

For example, precisely because we’ve permitted so many major gaps to emerge in our productive economy, we face enough alarming shortages to require some temporary degree of cooperation with other countries before they’re filled. Semiconductor manufacturing is a prime example. In turn, these shortfalls also extend to the professional workforces needed to reestablish domestic production. So some flexibility on immigration and visa policy will be needed, too – at least until we get our own science and technology workforce back up to speed.

And maybe the best de-globalized American economy shouldn’t even aim to hermetically seal the economy, or even close. After all, recognizing that foreign competition isn’t superior to domestic competition by no means requires dismissing the former as totally worthless. Similarly, the prioritizing of domestic competition doesn’t mean that all corporate concentration at home should be broken up.

Instead, what’s important for fostering a less globalized economy is realizing that it’s not necessarily, much less mainly, foreign competition that’s needed for economic success. It’s competition, period. And since the United States is eminently capable of supplying so many of its economic needs and wants on its own, without many of the downsides of foreign competition, why not reorient our national economic strategy to recognize the proper relationship between trade and competition policy, view them through different lenses, and base them on different default positions?

So before even considering new international trade agreements, Washington should ask whether the added increment of foreign competition and its expected benefits are worth the national security costs, the economic costs, and the social pathologies produced by the latter?

And for industries that do need a competitive kick in the pants, let’s first ask if that kick can come from some new domestic anti-trust-type action.

Before approving more mergers and acquisitions at home, Washington could ask if the firms involved could realize the greater scale economies and other gains they’re seeking by limiting their foreign competition.

If de-globalizing the American economy is the name of the game, then recognizing and overcoming the usually implicit but broad basis in favor of foreign over domestic competition looms not just as an important step. It will be an essential step.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Apple Products Now Designed in China, Too

Tags

{What's Left of) Our Economy, China, manufacturing, offshoring, globalization, technology, Made in America, Apple, The New York Times, research and development, engineering, design, Tripp Mickle, Federal Trade Commission

Although Apple has long relied on factories in China to turn out its incredibly popular electronics products, the company has clearly sought to counter charges that it’s been a world champion outsourcer that’s contributed to U.S. industrial hollowing out and general economic weakening. How? By touting its products as “Designed by Apple in California.”

And that’s mattered in more than a public relations sense because it’s been that U.S.-located design – and engineering – that’s long comprised the vast majority of the value of Apple products. Even better, it’s also long been the case that almost none of the wealth generated by iPhones and iMacs and the rest have gone to China. Those factories in the People’s Republic, owned by contract manufacturers, have largely been snapping the sophisticated parts together according to Apple’s appealing designs and sophisticated blueprints.

Now, though, according to excellent reporting by The New York Times‘ Tripp Mickle, it’s clear that Apple’s going to have at least put a big asterisk on its slogan. He’s updated trends that I identified literally decades ago in my book The Race to the Bottom and have followed since (see, e.g., here) making clear that not only is much of the Apple’s most advanced manufacturing (of parts and components) now performed in China, but so is a large and surging share of that engineering and design.

According to Mickle’s sources,

“More than ever, Apple’s Chinese employees and suppliers contributed complex work and sophisticated components for the 15th year of its marquee device, including aspects of manufacturing design, speakers and batteries, according to four people familiar with the new operations and analysts. As a result, the iPhone has gone from being a product that is designed in California and made in China to one that is a creation of both countries.”

Mickle continues: China’s “engineers and suppliers have moved up the supply chain to claim a bigger slice of the money that U.S. companies spend to create high-tech gadgets.”

As a result, just as American leaders have belatedly been awakening to the dangers of heavy reliance on China for critical goods, both because of Beijing’s burgeoning power and challenges to U.S. global technological leadership and the national security created by this stature, Apple has been boosting its dependence on the People’s Republic – and helping to enrich and empower this hostile dictatorship. 

Some of Mickle’s specifics:

>”This year, Apple has posted 50 percent more [high wage] jobs in China than it did during all of 2020, according to GlobalData, which tracks hiring trends across tech.”

>”When China closed its borders in 2020, Apple was forced to overhaul its operations and abandon its practice of flying hordes of California-based engineers to China to design the assembly process for flagship iPhones. Instead of subjecting staff to lengthy quarantines, Apple began empowering and hiring more Chinese engineers in Shenzhen and Shanghai to lead critical design elements for its best-selling product….”

>In 2007, Chinese suppliers accounted for a mere 3.6 percent of an iPhone’s value. Now this figure is more than 25 percent.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has just begun to enforce new regulations aimed at ensuring that products labeled “Made in America” really are produced domestically.  It’s time for Washington to require Apple to start telling the truth about its operations, too.     

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Strong Case for Decoupling from China Much Faster

Tags

China, China market, decoupling, exports, globalization, imports, Joseph C. Sternberg, protectionism, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, XiJinping, {What's Left of) Our Economy

What if Americans no longer had to pay so much attention to two of the biggest economic reasons for worry about China? Specifically, if Americans didn’t need to be nearly so concerned that much smarter, tougher measures against China’s predatory economic policies would cost their exporters access to a gigantic current and potentially bigger market? And they believed that decoupling from the hostile, dangerous People’s Republic could be much less economically damaging than widely supposed? 

Those are fascinating and important questions asked and suggested by Wall Street Journal columnist Joseph C. Sternberg in a piece over the weekend, and he presented some compelling evidence that, however “preposterous” it sounds now, these possibilities are surprisingly close to becoming realities. Moreover, they’re getting closer all the time, thanks to dictator Xi Jinping’s reversal of the free market-ish reforms and integration into the global economy begun by Beijing in the 1980s.

His evidence? The big payoff that supposedly motivated the U.S. and foreign governments and their multinational companies to push so hard to bring China into the world trading system – that aforementioned access to the Chinese market – is stalling out way short of expectations. In fact, as Sternberg documents, “China makes a disproportionately low contribution to Western firms’ bottom lines relative to its population and potential.”

To support these claims, the author cites data showing that the China market’s share of the revenues of several big Western economies’ multinational businesses (including America’s) remains well below ten percent. And this even though:

(a) more than twenty years have passed since China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), which entitled the People’s Republic to nearly all the benefits of integration with the global economy (while de facto enabling it to avoid most of the obligations); and

(b) China’s share of global economic output (which should approximate its share of the worldwide market for goods and services) had reached more than 15 percent in 2020 – and this percentage had jumped by some 50 percent in 2013.

But even these figures may be exaggerated, at least in the U.S. case. The financial research firm Calcbench has examined the share of revenues 67 of companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index earned in China in 2020. It came to a total of 10.48 percent – a little higher than Sternberg’s figure.

Most of the firms most reliant on China revenues, however, like Qualcomm (59.5 percent of its global total), Texas Instruments (55.5 percent), Lam Research (35.1 percent), and Applied Materials (31.7 percent) are either semiconductor manufacturers, producers of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, or makers of other advanced electronics parts and components. And large percentages of their China revenues are sold to the China-based factories that turn out consumer electronics products (like personal computers and cell phones), and that export huge shares of their own output. That is, those revenues aren’t really earned by sales to final customers located in China. They’re earned by sales to final customers located outside China (like the United States).

Just how large are some of these export percentages? According to this source and this source, 64.4 percent of all the cell phones made in China were sold overseas. According to this source and this source, 65.04 percent of the notebook computers made in the People’s Republic were exported that year. So that should more than satisfy the definition of “large”.   

One important claim that Sternberg gets wrong, however – that contention that “Countries wanted to open China to trade because of its population of more than 1.4 billion consumers. Their ascent into the global middle class, buying U.S. and European goods and services along the way, was the great prize to be won.”

In fact, as Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown explained in 2007, the companies “really had way more interest in one billion Chinese workers” when they were lobbying so hard to bring China into the WTO. I.e., they recognized at that point that China would long remain far too poor to become a major final market for their goods and services. But they were rightly confident that, with foreign training and management, China’s vast population could become highly productive (but still extremely cheap workers) long before that. A 2000 study by yours truly presented abundant evidence 

And China’s continuing heavy reliance on exports means that for all its spectacular progress, the People’s Republic is still far from the point where it can generate acceptable levels of growth and employment by relying on its own market for sales. In other words, for decades, the United States in particular -which has run the by far the world’s biggest trade deficit with China – has enjoyed much more leverage over China than vice versa. 

This doesn’t mean that Sternberg is under any illusions that further decoupling the U.S. and other foreign economies from China’s would be painless (though the still relatively self-sufficient U.S. economy would obviously feel much less – short-term – pain). But as he notes, China’s economy is running into big, growing problems – in particular a massive, already deflating real estate bubble that is undercutting the ability to China’s consumers to maintain current levels of spending on anything. In addition, Xi Jinping’s evident determination to squeeze foreign companies out of China as soon as feasible is leaving these foreign companies and economies little choice over the longer run.  So shouldn’t the United States and the rest of the world take these hints more closely to heart and greatly step up decoupling from China?  

Making News: On Internet Radio Tonight…& More!

Tags

deglobalization, global economy, globalization, Gordon G. Chang, Making News, The Hrjove Moric Show, TNT Radio

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to appear tonight on “The Hrjove [pronounced “Her-vo-ye”) Moric Show” on the internet radio network TNT Radio. The segment is scheduled to begin at 9 PM EST, promises to cover a wide range of domestic and international subjects, and you can listen live at this link by clicking (wait for it!) “Listen Live” in the upper right hand corner.

As usual, if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast of the inteview as soon as it’s available.

In addition, it was great to see Gordon G. Chang quote me in his latest op-ed on the big changes transforming the global economy lately. Click here to read.

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

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of NYC Radio Interview on Ukraine & Inflation…& More!

Tags

Biden administration, Buck Showalter, China, decoupling, Donald Trump, Following Up, Frank Morano, globalization, inflation, Major League Baseball, New York Mets, tariffs, The Other Side of Midnight, Trade, trade war, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, VOA, Voice of America, WABC AM

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview late last night on Frank Morano’s “The Other Side of Night” radio show on New York City’s WABC-AM. Click here for a lively conversation on the Ukraine war, inflation, global economic decoupling, tariffs…and Buck Showalter???

In addition, a video is finally available of a Voice of America (VOA) interview I did last Monday, April 11, on the state of U.S.-China economic relations. Happily, the Chinese language service of this U.S. government foreign broadcasting agency is now offering telecasts that feature the English-language audio of non-Chinese speakers (like me) with the Chinese content in subtitles. So it’s much easier for non-Chinese speakers to understand that non-Chinese content than under the previous system, which featured simultaneous Chinese translation over the interviewees’ barely audible voice.        

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

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of National Radio Interview on Ukraine War, Manufacturing, & Reshoring

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, Following Up, globalization, Gordon G. Chang, IMF, International Monetary Fund, lockdowns, logistics, manufacturing, reshoring, supply chains, Trade, transportation, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, Zero Covid

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast of my interview Wednesday night on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World” with John Batchelor is now on-line.

Click here for a timely discussion (with co-host Gordon G. Chang, too) on how U.S. domestic manufacturing is coping with the Ukraine war and other global supply chain snags – including a possible scenario John brings up that clearly throws me for a loop.  We also comment on a new report from the International Monetary Fund questioning whether reshoring industry back to the United States makes sense in the first place. 

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

 

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of National Radio Interview on the U.S., China, and De-Globalization

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Following Up, globalization, Gordon G. Chang, John Batchelor, manufacturing, near-shoring, reshoring, Russia, supply chains, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, Wuhan virus, zero covid policy

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast of my interview last night on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor” is now on-line.

Click here for a timely discussion with John and co-host Gordon G. Chang on whether the United States or China will hold the greatest advantages in a world where fragile international supply chains were de-globalizing even before the Ukraine-Russia war.

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

Making News: Back on National Radio on the U.S.-China Rivalry…& More!

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, de-globalization, globalization, Gordon G. Chang, John Batchelor, Making News, Newsweek, supply chains, Voice of America

I’m pleased to announce that tonight I’m scheduled to be back on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor.” Air time for the segment is yet to be determined, but the show is on nightly between 9 PM and 1 AM EST. You can listen live on-line here as John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and I examine whether the United States or China will have the greatest advantages in in which fragile worldwide supply chains keep getting de-globalized.

As usual, if you can’t tune in, the podcast will be posted as soon as it’s on-line.

In addition, it was great to see Gordon quote me in this new Newsweek column on China and the Ukraine war.

On March 5, the U.S. government-run Voice of America included my views in this post on the economic outlook for China this year.

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

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of National Radio Interview on China and Supply Chains

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Following Up, global supply chains, globalization, John Batchelor, logistics, manufacturing, supply chains, transportation, Wuhan virus, zero covid policy

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview last night on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor.”

Click here for a timely discussion of whether the continuing and multiple snags in many China-centered global supply chains will prompt U.S. and other foreign-owned companies to hedge their production bets by cutting their reliance on Chinese operations.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Are Apple Products “Designed in California…& Extorted by China?”

Tags

Apple Inc., Breitbart.com, China, Donald Trump, economics, forced technology transfer, free trade, globalization, infotech, John Carney, national security, privacy, surveillance, tech, TheInformation.com, Tim Cook, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

You have to give Tim Cook credit for sheer gall, at least if a recent report is true (as it appears to be, since it he hasn’t yet denied it). There was the Apple, Inc. CEO in 2018, at a forum in Beijing no less, in effect warning former President Donald Trump to ditch his plans to impose America’s first ever serious tariffs on Chinese goods, largely because “What I’ve seen over my lifetime is that countries that embrace openness, that embrace trade, that embrace diversity are the countries that do exceptional — and the countries that don’t, don’t.”

And not two years before, according to this account, Cook had promised China that over the next five years, the infotech giant would make a $275 billion effort to strengthen the People’s Republic’s technology and manufacturing base if China’s thug regime would back off a major crackdown it had launched on the company’s massive Chinese operations.

Moreover, as made clear in the December 7 article in TheInformation.com, Cook’s commitments not only have inevitably and massively affected U.S. and China trade and broader economic flows, and will continue to do so going forward. They’re likely to endanger America’s national security. After all, Cook, for reasons having squadoosh to do with free trade or free markets or economic fundamentals, evidently pledged to

>invest “many billions of dollars more” than what the company was already spending annually in China: in part on building new research and development centers”;

>help Chinese manufacturers develop “the most advanced manufacturing technologies” and “support the training of high-quality Chinese talents”;

>collaborate on technology with Chinese universities and directly invest in Chinese tech companies”; and

>collaborate on technology with Chinese universities and directly invest in Chinese tech companies”;

>use more components from Chinese suppliers in its devices”; and 

>give business to Chinese software firms”.

Since every economic and academic entity in China is ultimately under the thumb of the Chinese government, Cook’s submission to Beijng’s pressure has made enormous amounts of resources and knowhow available to a Chinese regime that has challenged American security interests in East Asia and around the world, and that powerfully threatens Washington’s ability to protect Americans’ privacy and political freedoms through its increasingly impressive hacking and other surveillance capabilities (including via the wildly popular TikTok video-sharing app).

In the worst (but ever more plausible) case, in a future conflict with Beijing, Chinese weapons that kill U.S servicemen could be partly and/or indirectly financed and developed by Apple – and, as I’ve made clear, e.g., here and here, by the numerous other U.S. companies that have fueled China’s tech and therefore military prowess.

But also crucial to point out – the deal signed by Cook (far from the only target of China’s successful campaigns of forced tech and manufacturing production transfer over a period stretching back decades), also challenges a core idea of free trade theory in a way first pointed out by friend John Carney of Breitbart.com.

As Carney wrote more than two years ago, economists and others who were crticizing Trump’s tariffs were making an especially important mistake. They were assuming “that all of the goods that are imported from China are made there because China is the lowest cost manufacturer of those goods. If that were true, moving production out of China would necessarily increase costs of production and reduce efficiency.”

But as he proceeded to remind, China couldn’t be such a paragon of manufacturing value. If it were, why would Beijing have been relying for so long on such a wide variety of “mercantilist tactics to attract and retain manufacturing business from global businesses, including requiring companies to manufacture goods in China in order to access its domestic markets and imposing steep tariffs on imports for foreign-made goods”?

In fact, Carney continued, “China’s policies…impose what economists call ‘deadweight losses’ on the global economy by preventing companies from moving their supply chains to cheaper sources.” And tariffs can serve as an essential counter-weight. 

Apple is nothing if not public relations-obsessed, and several years ago responded to public concern about all its production in the People’s Republic with an ad campaign stressing that its products are “designed in California.”  At least for accuracy’s sake, the company should now add “and extorted by China.”  And the news should greatly energize Washington’s efforts to stop U.S. companies from strengthening and enriching this burgoning menace.