(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Globalization and Butter Cookies

Tags

China, consumers, country of origin labels, food, free trade, globalization, Indonesia, Netherlands, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

So there I was sitting on the living room couch watching some TV after the big Thanksgiving meal with my some of my wife’s family, and of course I was eating again – this time some “premium butter cookies” from a big, brightly colored tin container. Why should that be remotely blog-worthy?

Here’s why. If you’re a cookie aficionado like me, when you read terms like “butter cookies” and “big, brightly colored tin container” chances are you think the product comes from Denmark. And in fact, you’d be even more likely to come to that conclusion upon seeing that the brand is “Danisa” and that the cookies come from an “original recipe of Danish Specialty Foods APS.” The cover is topped by a European-type monarch’s crown, too.

Imagine my wife’s surprise, then, when she found out (after she came home with them from the supermarket thinking that they’d be a terrific gift for the relatives of Danish descent we saw today) that they’re a “Product of Indonesia.” And despite my decades of work studying the globalization of production (including food manufacturing) and other economic activity, the cookies’ origins threw me for a loop, too – for two reasons. First, I wasn’t aware that Indonesia was such a center of cookie production excellence. And second, Indonesia (as opposed to other very low-cost countries) might have made some sense had this enormous Asian archipelago country ever been controlled by Denmark. But it wasn’t. Its former colonial masters were the Dutch – who are known for some pretty terrific cookies themselves (but unfortunately were notably cruel imperialists).

Upon further investigation, however, I discovered that Indonesia has formidable cookie-making capabilities. Indeed, although Danish Specialty Foods APS is indeed a Copenhagen-based business whose website says it “specializes in Danish butter cookies and owns the right to the brand, Danisa, worldwide,” it also operates an Indonesian facility owned by PT Mayora Indah Tbk.

That Indonesian food conglomerate says its founder “started baking its first biscuits out of a home kitchen in 1948” and has since “grown to become a recognized global company in the Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry.” And it’s big into the “biscuit, candy, wafer, chocolate, coffee, instant food, beverage and cereal” spaces.

More surprising still: Indonesia has quite the reputation, at least in Asia, for butter cookies in particular. And I’ve got to tell you – these cookies taste just as good as any I’ve had (most of which I assume have come from Denmark, but now I can’t really be sure).

So maybe the doctrine of comparative advantage – the principal economic theory supposedly explaining the superiority of the freest possible global trade over all other trade alternatives – is at work here after all? I suppose. At the same time, the same discipline of mainstream economics that lauds free trade also holds that economies at all levels work best when consumers have the most information available about the products and services they’re examining.

To be clear, American law requires no country-of-origin labels for processed food products like cookies.  So the two above companies deserve some credit for offering any “Product of Indonesia” identification at all.  At the same time, this label is found on the bottom of the butter cookie tin in type tinier than I’ve ever seen aside from some jewelry inscriptions.

Would my wife have bought the cookies had the brand been “Mayora” rather than “Danisa”? Had the tin cover pictured, say, a Sumatran rhino? Had “Product of Indonesia” been displayed prominently on the lid? Probably not, since she was looking for a gift from Denmark. Might she have picked some up if she just had a hankering for butter cookies, or thought I might? Maybe.

I’m still left

>wondering whether and if so why Denmark itself has lost its butter cookie-making chops – or at least its ability to make the products competitively;

>and thinking that if a company is willing to make a product associated with a country in a country that’s not associated with that country, it shouldn’t make that product’s real origin as inconspicuous as the law allows.

And let’s not forget a final twist to the story: Danish Specialty Foods announced on its website that it was planning to open a factory in China. Of course, it turns out there’s a long butter cookie-making tradition there, too.

Making News: Speaking at a D.C. Conference Today on Antitrust and Trade Policy

Tags

antitrust, competition, free trade, globalization, Im-Politic, monopolies, monopoly, The American Conservative, The American Prospect, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to speak this morning at a conference in Washington, D.C. on the increasingly weird relationship between American trade policy and American antitrust policy.

The overall event focuses on the troubling rise of monopolies and oligopolies in general in the U.S. economy in recent decades, and is co-sponsored by The American Conservative and The American Prospect – two magazines pretty far apart on the political spectrum.  My own presentation will draw on my article earlier this year on the subject in the summer issue of American Affairs.  (Yes, yet another political publication!).

If you live in the D.C. area, the event will be taking place at the National Press Club downtown starting at 11 AM.  If not, I haven’t yet found anywhere where the conference can be seen live on-line.  But if I do before I actually mount the rostrum, I’ll try to send it out.  And of course, once a link to any video is posted, I’ll let you know ASAP.

In the meantime, wish me luck, and keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Can Free Trade Nowadays Really Maximize Global Well-Being?

Tags

China, East Asia, economics, free markets, free trade, globalization, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As nearly every economist worth their salt can tell you, as far as their profession is concerned, the prime end goal of liberalizing global trade as completely as possible is maximizing the entire world’s economic well-being. And theoretical, purely economic criticisms of the freest possible global trade have been dominated by questioning whether efforts to achieve this goal have truly have kept this promise, or are capable of doing so.

I don’t mean to minimize the importance of this debate, or others focusing on related but distinctive issues bringing into play non-economic considerations – like whether trade and broader economic policies need to broaden their definition of well-being to include goals like increasing feelings of happiness and security, or like fighting climate change and other threats to the environment, or like preserving America’s national security, or like ensuring that the economic well-being being created is more equitably shared.

But these days, it seems that American policymakers in particular need to ask themselves a more fundamental question: Assuming the goal can be reached, is the greatest possible worldwide economic (that is, material) well-being actually a goal that the global trading system should be trying to reach? And all peoples and governments of good will, not simply the United States, have a vital stake in figuring out the right answer – especially if they place noteworthy value on free markets.

The presence of the word “governments” in the previous sentence points to a central complication that the welfare-maximizing enthusiasts seem to be missing.

Specifically, no one of good will could reasonably oppose maximizing the economic welfare of all the world’s individuals (assuming, of course, that whatever non-economic challenges caused by high growth – e.g., environmental threats – aren’t ignored).

But even leaving aside strategic and national security considerations, the organization of the world’s individuals into governments creates a big problem with this objective. Specifically, many of these governments have organized their national economies in turn around principles and practices that have nothing to do not only with free trade, but with free markets or any aspect of economic liberalism themselves – the idea that individuals and other economic actors (like businesses) have the right to make the (legal) economic choices they regard as serving their own best economic and/or non-economic interests.

China is the obvious example. Its system holds that, even though at a very local or micro level, individual and other actors (because of the point I’m about to make, I’ve always hesitated to use the word “businesses” or “companies” to describe any Chinese goods- or service-producing entities) can be permitted to act on their own impulses, any such economic decisions with broader effects should be made or be subject to the control of the state. And all resources related to the economy are ultimately accountable to the state as well.

There’s no legitimate doubt that freer trade has helped lift hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty, and of course contributed to the economic well-being of myriad non-Chinese individuals and businesses and other entities that sell to this huge, burgeoning market, the growing prosperity of Chinese individuals. But there can also be no legitimate doubt that this free trade has also greatly strengthened a Chinese government whose practices clearly amount to a broad rejection of free trade and the rest of free market thinking.

Until now, it’s been easy to argue that whatever Beijing’s interventionist record, freeing up trade between China and the rest of the globe has improved the world’s wealth on net, even though China may have been the greatest beneficiary, and even though workers in high-income countries (to cite one prominent example) may have paid an economic price on net. 

But all this wealth creation unquestionably has strengthened this command-and-control Chinese system, its global footprint, and its influence over the world economy. If you believe in the virtues of free markets, how can this kind of development possibly keep increasing overall world economic well-being over any significant period of time (as opposed to spurring the kinds of brief boom periods that tend to become busts)? And if it can (and statist China has been a big global economic player for many years now), then maybe it’s time to rethink faith in free markets to begin with?

Of course, it’s important to keep in mind a long-time standard explanation of how China’s economic rise can be squared with support for continual global trade liberalization. It’s the confidence that more and freer trade with China will promote a liberalization of China’s domestic economy that will inevitably loosen the state’s grip trade and other foreign economic policies. But as known to anyone who’s been following China issues in recent years, Beijing has been reasserting control over much of the paltry amount of economic activity that it had previously ceded. Moreover, this trend didn’t begin with current leader Xi Jinping. So at the very least, the optimists are now under a heavy burden of proof to show that continuing to free up trade with China, or even fighting Trump-ian American backsliding, will maximize global welfare indirectly, by fostering Chinese internal economic liberalization.

Given China’s immense size, a China exception to the trade-spurring-welfare-maximization claim would be crucial enough. But it’s not just China. Economic intervention even dwarfing that practiced by the United States (including but hardly limited to the massive response to the financial crisis by the Bush and Obama administrations, and especially the still considerable stimulus supplied by the Federal Reserve) is common the world over. Gradations vary considerably, but fascinatingly, and perhaps revealingly, its strongest in East Asia, the region that, even leaving China out, almost everyone agrees has been the biggest net winner from trade liberalization going back to the early post-World War II period.

Unlike China, some of the leading East Asian beneficiaries of freer global trade, like Japan and South Korea, are U.S. security allies. But they conform with no reasonable definitions of free market systems, either. Should American policy, and the policies of other more market-oriented economies, support making these countries and their highly interventionist systems stronger, richer, and more influential as well?

China’s rise and increasingly anti-American actions on many fronts have prompted speculation that current bilateral tensions might eventually split today’s highly integrated global economy into separate, Cold War-like U.S.- and Chinese-dominated spheres. In fact, this may be a Trump administration goal. So far, this talk has emphasized the intertwined technology and national security reasons for pursuing this goal. But if free markets are all they’re cracked up to be, it may also be warranted for solely economic reasons.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How Many Strikes Does Paul Krugman Get on Trade?

Tags

automation, China, China shock, globalization, hyperglobalization, Jobs, manufacturing, manufacturing employment, offshoring, Paul M. Krugman, protectionism, tariffs, The New York Times, Trade, Trade Deficits, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Contrary to what many trade mavens must think, Paul Krugman’s recent confession that he (and nearly all of his economics colleagues) have seriously misjudged the impact of international trade on America’s manufacturing workers isn’t his first. At least twice before (see here and here), this Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist has admitted in print that the economics profession’s consensus was wrong to brush off (and often scorn) claims that post-Cold War trade agreements and similar trade policy decisions would foster a combination of wholly new and unbeatable (but economically unsustainable) forms of import competition for domestic industry, and related job and production offshoring. (I’m among those he’s mauled in print.) And he’s granted that trade policy critics who predicted these consequences and kept pointing to evidence of their emergence were right. (See here and here.)

Still, Krugman’s latest mea culpa is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it undercuts another tenet of trade economics dogma held almost as strongly believed as the belief that trade expansion in all circumstances is a net contributor to human welfare – the related conviction that imbalances like trade deficits don’t matter (at worst).

In particular, the author acknowledges that the rapid and massive increase in America’s manufacturing-dominated goods trade deficit – especially from super-low cost economies (and offshoring destinations) like Mexico and especially China – occurred at exactly the same time that U.S. industrial employment cratered. And not coincidentally, the destruction began right about when China was admitted into the World Trade Organization (WTO). That mattered greatly because the Beijing subsidies and other predatory trade practices that benefited both foreign- and Chinese-owned producers in the PRC gained invaluable protection from unilateral U.S. responses.

How greatly? According to Krugman, the worsening of the trade deficit “reduced the share of manufacturing in GDP by around 1.5 percentage points, or more than 10%, which means that it explains more than half the roughly 20% decline in manufacturing employment between 1997 and 2005.” In other words, most of the manufacturing job loss during this crucial period – which is a particularly important one because that’s when critical masses of recently offshored factories got up and running and began exporting to the American market – should be blamed not on supposedly impersonal and clearly positive forces of progress like containerization in global shipping, and automation generally, but on actions by American leaders.

Not that Krugman abandons conventional trade economics completely. Specifically, he contends that trade deficits generally speaking are still ultimately unimportant, partly because countries can’t grow indefinitely indebted to the rest of the world and “must pay their way eventually.” The post mid-nineties surge in the manufacturing trade shortfall hammered domestic American manufacturing, he explains, only because it skyrocketed so suddenly.

Readers, however, will ask themselves how the United States can pay its way in the foreseeable future when manufacturing still dominates its lopsided goods trade flows. And they should note that although the damage to manufacturing could still prove temporary, it’s already lasted nearly twenty years, with no imminent end in sight until the past year. (See this post for one of my recent claims that President Trump’s trade policies are starting to bend the curve.)

Second, and following logically from the first point, Krugman continues to insist that protective tariffs should be avoided. Now his opposition focuses on his contention that the trade-related danger to U.S. manufacturing is coming to an end. The China shock in particular, which spearheaded the recent period of “hyperglobalization,” was “a one-time event” that’s already showing signs of ebbing.

But if Krugman was so offbase in evaluating trade’s economic effects, why should such predictions deserve any credibility? Off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons for ongoing concern. For example, China still has massive reserves of super cheap, U.S. wage-depressing labor in its interior and, counter-intuitively, in its national student body. In addition, the progress Beijing has fostered in capital- and technology-intensive industries means that these sectors of American manufacturing will keep facing the same kinds of low-wage (but high productivity) challenges that decimated less advanced, more labor-intensive U.S.-based sectors in previous decades. Moreover, if China does lose competitiveness even in these portions of manufacturing, there’s no shortage of bargain basement third world population giants – like India, Indonesia, and Brazil – that would be more than happy to receive more manufacturing investment from the United States and other high-income countries.

Everyone’s entitled to make mistakes – even know-it-alls like Krugman, who’s known for torching those disagreeing with him as know-nothings and liars. And Krugman deserves praise for owning up to his own mistakes. But it’s also appropriate to ask this question: Since Krugman first established his economic chops as a trade expert, and since he’s clearly been proven wrong about the leading trade-related controversy of our time, how many more strikes does he get?

Glad I Didn’t Say That! The IMF’s Muddled Message on Trade and Productivity Growth

Tags

Christine LaGarde, Glad I Didn't Say That!, globalization, IMF, International Monetary Fund, productivity, tariffs, Trade

“[S]ince the mid-1990s….declining tariffs have lifted [worldwide] productivity ….”

–International Monetary Fund, April, 2019

“Over the past decade, there have been sharp slowdowns in [worldwide] measured output per worker and total factor productivity….Even before the global financial crisis, productivity growth was slowing in many advanced economies, such as the United States….”

– International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine LaGarde, April 3, 2017

 

(Sources Chapter 4, “The Drivers of Bilateral Trade and the Spillovers from Tariffs,” p. 103, World Economic Outlook, April, 2019, International Monetary Fund, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2019/03/28/world-economic-outlook-april-2019#Chapter%204 and “Reinvigorating Productivity Growth,” by Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, American Enterprise Institute, April 3, 2017, https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2017/04/03/sp040317-reinvigorating-productivity-growth )

 

(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?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Atlantic’s Hatchet Job on Trump’s Trade Policy and Trade Negotiator

Tags

Chad Bown, China, globalization, James Bacchus, Matt Peterson, Merit Janow, multinational companies, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Robert Lighthizer, The Atlantic, Trade, trade war, Trump, U.S. Trade Representative, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I wish I could say that, in the process of ringing out the old year, America is ringing out incompetent or willfully ignorant journalism about U.S. trade policy. But a looooong article just published by The Atlantic on U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer makes painfully clear that that point remains as far away as ever.

The article, by Atlantic Senior Editor Matt Peterson, would deserve quick dismissal simply due to one of its major themes: that Lighthizer, President Trump’s chief trade negotiator, takes a hard line on the issue in general, and on China in particular, because he’s long been in the pocket of the domestic steel industry as one of its principal trade lawyers.

This smear is especially rich because a trade policymaker lionized by Peterson as a strong opponent of such conflicts of interest and consequent paragon of policy virtue – another American trade lawyer named Merit Janow – followed her stint as a senior magistrate at the World Trade Organization (WTO) – by accepting a position as “a charter member of the International Advisory Council of China’s sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corporation or CIC.” That is, she jumped onto the payroll of the Chinese government.

But more fundamentally troubling about Peterson’s piece is its – sadly, standard – description of the WTO as an institution that defends and promotes the interests of the entire American economy. How so? By creating a U.S.-style court of law that would impartially mete out commercial justice but that could be used especially effectively by American diplomats highly skilled in working with such systems. One genuine contribution made by Peterson is reporting evidence that Lighthizer himself once apparently bought into this argument.

These views, however, completely ignore two related, alternative interpretations of the WTO’s creation that at deserve consideration at least because one of them is so regularly repeated by journalists and WTO supporters. That interpretation portrays the WTO as an arrangement that aimed primarily at restraining America’s ability to combat predatory foreign trade practices by enmeshing the United States in a simple majoritarian legal system in which all countries – including the vast majority of members who relied heavily on such mercantilism for their growth.

Chad Bown of the (pro-WTO) Peterson Institute for International Economics, one of the American media’s “go to” trade policy commentators made this point abundantly clear when he told The New York Times that the main foreign impetus for establishing the WTO was a determination to find ways of resisting America’s (successful) 1980s unilateral efforts to frustrate their trade predation and pry open their markets to U.S.-made goods.

Former WTO official (and U.S. Member of Congress) James Bacchus made a similar point earlier this year when he criticized Lighthizer (and other American economic nationalists) for their belief that the United States was better off under the pre-WTO world trade system.  Why?  Because it left the (democratically elected) U.S. government “free to go on the offence aggressively in trade by taking unilateral trade actions without any international legal constraint.”

The second, related alternative interpretation of the WTO’s creation focuses on the U.S. multinational corporations that dominated U.S. trade policymaking under Mr. Trump’s immediate predecessors: They strongly favored subjecting unilateral American power in trade diplomacy because their overseas operations – especially those geared toward supplying the American market – benefited immensely, often at the expense of domestic competitors, from many of the predatory foreign practices targeted by many American leaders who don’t shill for these offshoring interests. China’s longstanding beggar-its-neighbors currency policies have been only one example.

The Atlantic is rightly proud of its long history of publishing “iconic thinkers” and “covering ideas that matter.” Many more articles like Peterson’s, and it will also be known for hatchet jobs.

Im-Politic: Has a Major U.S. Economist Secretly Been in China’s Pocket?

Tags

China, donors, economists, globalization, Huawei, Im-Politic, Isaac Stone Fish, Jeffrey D. Sachs, national security, Project Syndicate, technology, telecommunications, think tanks, trade war, Trump, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Washington Post

I’ve always been skeptical of claims that money explains everything about where prominent folks stand on policy debates. Sure, money talks loudly, and that’s why, for example, I’ve so consistently reported on how leading U.S. think tanks are lavishly funded by corporate interests (e.g., here) and even by foreign governments (e,g, here) with huge stakes in matters on which they regularly comment, such as trade and globalization issues.

But I’ve believed that for the most part, their positions are also at least partly sincerely held – reflecting either an inability even to question what they’ve learned in school, or the power of group-think in their professional and social circles (inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway in particular these realms tend to overlap substantially), their honest convictions, and typically some combination of the above.

I still refuse automatically to write off analysts who disagree with me as simple donors’ mouthpieces, but a recent incident has reminded me that – in the words of a close long-time friend – when seeking to understand political behavior, the most cynical explanation is rarely wrong.

The story begins with an article on the Project Syndicate website – a sort of digital global op-ed page (which, to be sure, overwhelmingly publishes writers with globalist/establishment viewpoints) – by economist Jeffrey D. Sachs.

Sachs is a world-renowned figure in his field, but as with many of his colleagues, seems to assume that mastery of conventional economic concepts translates into expertise on all other subjects. (Google “Krugman, Paul” for perhaps the leading example of this phenomenon.) So I wasn’t entirely surprised to see him writing on the recent American arrest, on sanctions-busting charges, of a senior executive from the Chinese telecommunications entity Huawei – even though he has no special credentials on China, or technology, or national security.

I was very surprised by the nature of Sachs’ attack on the U.S. action, which ran on December 11. Most criticisms of the arrest focused on whether it would escalate the U.S.-China trade war – whether because it signaled a more aggressive turn in Washington’s approach, or because it would trigger Chinese retaliation – or whether the United States ultimately could curb China’s technological development, or whether the American tech industry could continue excelling after a cutoff of its access to Chinese markets or parts and components.

But according to Sachs, the Huawei arrest mattered most because it showed that “The Trump administration, not Huawei or China, is today’s greatest threat to the international rule of law, and therefore to global peace.” That’s pretty out there given that Huawei’s largest shareholder is a Chinese telecommunications company owned outright by the Chinese state, that its close relationship with Beijing has caused governments the world over to limit its presence in their markets for national security reasons, and that the Chinese regime itself has been challenging international law, and in turn peace and security, in the South China Sea region.

Still, I was inclined to write off Sachs’ diatribe as yet another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome, or the outgrowth of idolatry of the globalization status quo fanatical enough to fuel (sincere) outrage at any development threatening to change it – e.g., President Trump’s decision to confront China’s trade predation.

As a result, I was inclined to dismiss as off-base the reaction of one of my Twitter followers to Sachs’ article: “I guess we know who is signing Jeffrey Sachs’ paycheck these days.”

So imagine my surprise when, on December 12, Washington Post columnist Isaac Stone Fish reported that Sachs had written the forward to a big report put out by Huawei in November.

Nothing necessarily improper there. Academics engage in such activities all the time. And if Sachs genuinely believes that an entity that clearly is an arm of the repressive Chinese government deserved “kudos” for “producing… a timely and clear roadmap to help governments, businesses and civil society [emphasis added] to create digital nations on the path to sustainable development,” well that’s his business.

What is massively improper has been Sachs’ reactions to Fish’s questions about Sachs’ relationship with Huawei in light of his glowing praise of the entity both in the report and in his Project Syndicate piece: “Did Huawei pay you for that [the forward]? If so, don’t you think you should disclose that?”

Rather than respond to Fish, Sachs stonewalled – in fact, going so far as to delete his Twitter account.

In the process, he not only made it difficult to avoid the conclusion that he has something to hide when it comes to Huawei. He’s also unavoidably created shadows over two respected organizations with which he’s been closely affiliated: Columbia University’s Earth Institute (which he headed between 2002 and 2016), and that Institute’s Center for Sustainable Development (which he heads now).

I’ve been looking for evidence of Huawei or other Chinese funding for these organizations, and haven’t found any yet. But that doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been any (perhaps funneled through third parties?), and that it hasn’t colored their work. Because like I said, when seeking to understand political behavior, the most cynical explanation is rarely wrong.

Im-Politic: Elizabeth Warren, Nationalist?

Tags

Elizabeth Warren, Emmanuel Macron, global poverty, globalization, Im-Politic, nationalism, progressives, Seattle WTO protests, third world, Trade, World Trade Organization, WTO

Whatever its historical roots, “nationalism” has recently become a dirty word. Among the dangers embodied by this concept, as determined by political correctness authorities such as France’s (politically besieged) President Emmanuel Macron, it’s “a betrayal of patriotism. By saying ‘Our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what gives it grace, and what is essential: its moral values.”

How stunning, therefore, to read Elizabeth Warren’s recent speech on U.S. foreign policy. According to this definition, the Massachusetts Democratic Senator, progressive heroine, and likely 2020 presidential hopeful, is a card-carrying, selfish, immoral (amoral?) America First-style nationalist – at least when it comes to international trade and related globalization issues.

Skeptical? Just read the Warren transcript. On the one hand, she admitted that “The globalization of trade has opened up opportunity and lifted billions out of poverty around the world” – which by any standard is a pretty remarkable achievement. Yet on the other hand, Warren condemned the “trade and economic policies” behind this epic success for failing to deliver “the same kind of benefits for America’s middle class.”

In fact, she emphasized, “U.S. trade policy has delivered one punch in the gut after another to [U.S.] workers and to the unions that fight for them.”

It’s true that, elsewhere in her speech, Warren briefly referred to revamping American trade policy to ensure “that workers are meaningfully represented at the negotiating table and build trade agreements that strengthen labor standards worldwide.” But much more often, she lambasted agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its successor, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) for encouraging “outsourcing jobs to Mexico.”

In other words, either such outsourcing somehow failed to ameliorate poverty in Mexico (even though Warren credits it with uplifting the poor elsewhere), or she assigns little importance to achieving that goal. In either case, Warren has some major explaining to do.

Also fascinating about Warren’s speech: If it’s to be taken seriously (never a sure thing when it comes to politicians’ rhetoric), it would represent a significant, and in my view, welcome change in progressives’ take on trade, globalization, and what’s fundamentally wrong with them.

For since these issues became front-page news during the debate over NAFTA, at the start of the 1990s, critics to the left-of-center have proclaimed that U.S. trade and related policies would remain unacceptable unless they boosted living standards everywhere, not just in America – and that they had betrayed workers in developing countries as completely as their counterparts in the United States.

American progressives’ emphasis on the devastation created in the third world by U.S.-spearheaded trade arrangements came to a head during the Seattle World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in 1999 – as did the companion belief that win-win solutions for workers and consumers everywhere should be and could be the very raison d’etre of the global economy. And as indicated by this 2015 statement from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it remains their party line today.

The point here is not that no conceivable form of globalization can ever produce globe-wide benefits. Instead, it’s that the road to mutual gain is unlikely to proceed in a straight, smooth, uninterrupted line, and that without recognizing that hard choices are likely for the foreseeable future, and that those global benefits may not be distributed evenly, the worst of all worlds is all too likely.

So here’s hoping that her speech is evidence that Warren is becoming aware of these at-least-likely complications, that she’ll start prompting such globalization realism on the American Left – and that she won’t be deterred by apologists for a failed status quo who, along with most of her fellow progressives, have been reduced to portraying nationalism as part of the problem, rather than potentially part of the solution.

Making News: Podcast Now On-Line of Last Night’s National Radio Interview on U.S.-China Trade War!

Tags

China, globalization, Gordon G. Chang, Making News, tariffs, Thaddeus McCotter, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump

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 covering the latest news of America’s trade conflict with China. With the U.S. stock market tanking this morning partly because of trade war-related concerns, it’s a conversation (also featuring co-host Gordon G. Chang and former Michigan Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter) you won’t want to miss! Here’s the link.

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