(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Strong Crosswinds Roil the New U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Figures

Tags

aerospace, air travel, automotive, CCP Virus, chemicals, coronavirus, COVID 19, Employment, fabricated metals products, infrastructure, Jobs, machinery, manufacturing, miscellaneous durable goods, miscellaneous non-durable goods, non-farm jobs, pharmaceuticals, PPE, private sector, regulation, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, stimulus package, taxes, vaccines, wood products, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s tough to imagine a U.S. official monthly jobs report giving off so many conflicting signals about the health of domestic manufacturing and its outlook than the one that came out this morning (for April).

On the one hand, the sector’s 18,000 jobs loss was its worst monthly performance since the identical January setback. On the other hand, the problem was heavily concentrated in the automotive sector, which has been forced to cut back production due to the ongoing global semiconductor shortage. On the other, other hand (!), this shortage is unlikely to ease for many months. On still another hand, the revisions were strong. And some key manufacturing industries continued a recent pattern of solid results. At the same time, even removing the automotive results would still leave the rest of domestic manufacturing’s April employment performance decidedly weak.

I could go on in this vein – and will below.

The decisive automotive/semiconductor effect on the April manufacturing figures becomes clear enough upon realizing that this sector’s 27,000 sequential employment loss was considerably greater than manufacturing’s total on-month job decline. Nonetheless, even had automotive held its employment line, the consequent 9,000 manufacturing job increase would have been unimpressive at very best.

And yet there are those revisions. March’s initially reported 53,000 monthly manufacturing payroll increases – the best such figure since last September’s 55,000 – are now pegged at 54,000. Even better, February’s initially downgraded (from 21,000 to 18,000) monthly employment increase has now been revised all the way up to 35,000.

As a result, domestic industry has now regained 63.83 percent (or 870,000) of the 1.363 million jobs it shed during the height of the CCP Virus pandemic in spring, 2020. It’s still behind the private sector overall (which has recovered 66.88 percent of its pandemic peak employment loss), but still ahead of the overall economy’s (called the non-farm sector by the Labor Department, which issues the monthly jobs reports) 63.26 percent.

The only major April manufacturing jobs loser other than automotive was the small wood products sector (7,200). The big fabricated metals products industry saw employment fall by 2,900 on month in April, but the drop followed a large March gain that’s been downwardly revised but still stands at a strong 10,400.

The machinery numbers were downright encouraging, and that matters because as I keep reminding, this subsector’s products are used not only throughout the rest of domestic manufacturing, but in other important parts of the economy like construction and agriculture. Its April employment boost of 3,700 followed March job creation that was upgraded strongly to 5,400.

In the big miscellaneous durable goods sector, a catchall category that includes everything from surgical equipment and supplies (like personal healthcare protection equipment – PPE – more on which later) to jewelry to gaskets and fasteners to musical instruments, payrolls jumped by 12,600 – their best monthly performance since its 15,300 advance last July.

And two other significant manufacturing employers –miscellaneous non-durable goods and the big chemicals sectors (whose output is also used all over the economy) – each generated enjoyed healthy payrolls increases of 4,300 in April.

Even the industries closely related to the fight against the CCP Virus, whose employment performance since the pandemic’s arrival generally have disappointed, showed some signs of job-creation life in April.

The overall pharmaceutical industry added 1,500 jobs on month in March (the latest available figures) and Februay’s improvement remains a strong 1,700. Since the last pre-pandemic month (February, 2020), this sector’s payrolls have grown by 3.11 percent.

Hiring slowed in the pharmaceuticals subsector containing vaccines – from 1,300 sequentially in February (unchanged from the first estimate) to 500 in March (also the latest available figures). But these companies’ employment is still 6.77 percent higher than in that last pre-pandemic month of February, 2020.

The employment signals were mixed in the manufacturing category containing PPE goods like facemasks, gloves, and medical gowns. Monthly job creation in February was downgraded from zero to a loss of 100, but March’s results (also the most recent) came in at 900, and this sector now employs 8.75 percent more workers than in February, 2020.

In an aerospace industry troubled for years by Boeing’s safety woes, the recent jobs figures are literally all over the place. The latest (March) results show that payrolls for aircraft fell month-to-month in March by 1,800 – surely reflecting the continuing virus-generated slump in air travel. But February’s upward revisions were nothing less than stunning – skyrocketing from a jump of 1,000 to one of 11,700. Fluctuations – though more modest – were also evident in aircraft engines and parts, and non-engine aircraft parts.

Yet as confusing as the new manufacturing jobs figures have been, the future seems just as cloudy. Optimism remains justified by developments like the enormous amounts of stimulus still pouring into the U.S. economy, by the apparent certainty that a major injection of infratructure spending is (finally) on the way, and by the continuing reopening of the economy spurred by vaccinations and less consumer caution.

Even so, the semiconductor shortage is not only here to stay for some time, but has affected many other industries other than automotive. The rate of U.S. vaccinations is slowing and the virus – including the new variants – appears likely to stage something of a comeback when the weather cools again in the fall. Air travel may never recover to pre-virus levels, which will harm not only the aerospace industry per se, but its vast domestic supply chain. And higher taxes and many more regulations could well hit U.S.-based manufacturers – at least until the Congressional elections of 2022.

On balance, I’d still bet on a bright future for domestic industry – mainly because all the sentiment surveys show that manufacturers themselves are full of confidence, and because President Biden has kept in place all the Trump China and metals tariffs that have priced much foreign competition out of the U.S. market. But I’m far from willing to bet the ranch.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Spring-y New U.S. Manufacturing Production Report

Tags

aerospace, automotive, Biden, Boeing, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Donald Trump, Federal Reserve, health security, imports, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, infrastructure, machinery, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, PPE, real growth, semiconductor shortage, stimulus, supply chain, tariffs, Trade, trade war, vaccines, ventilators, West Coast ports, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

You might call today’s March U.S. manufacturing production figures from the Federal Reserve a good news/bad news/good news story. Moreover, the new data on inflation-adjusted factory output contained a surprise worth noting.

First the good news/bad news/good news. The Fed report showed that real domestic manufacturing output rose by 2.79 percent on month in March. That was the best such result since July’s 4.25 percent – much earlier during the recovery from the deep CCP Virus- and lockdowns-induced recession. Rebounds from major downturns tend to be strongest earliest, especially for highly cyclical sectors of the economy like manufacturing, and that surely went double for a slump largely caused by an outside shock like a pandemic and dramatic government responses, rather than one caused by a market-based economy’s ordinary fluctuations.

The bad news was that this robust growth followed a February sequential drop of 3.72 percent that was the worst monthly performance since pandemicky April’s 15.83 percent plunge. Moreover, this revised February figure was a significant downgrade from the initially reported 3.12 percent decline. The other revisions, going back to October, were too small to affect the picture over the last few months.

But then there’s that second piece of good news: As the Fed’s release explained this morning, the lousy February numbers “largely resulted from widespread outages related to severe winter weather in the south central region of the country.” So they stemmed from a (temporary) outside shock, too.

The surprise? Although the U.S. automotive industry continues reducing production due to a global shortage of semiconductors, output in price-adjusted terms grew by 2.79 percent sequentially in March. At the same time, the February fall-off was revised down from 8.26 percent to ten percent even. And the shortage is expected to undercut vehicle production until the fall, so that’s a drag likely to weigh on the overall manufacturing figures for months.

The total March manufacturing figure means that domestic industry’s after-inflation production has grown by 22.88 percent since its recent low-point last April, and has climbed back to within 1.73 percent of its last pre-pandemic reading in February, 2020.

Manufacturing’s monthly current dollar output gains were broadbased in March, including in the crucial machinery sector. In this industry, whose products are widely used not only throughout manufacturing, but in many other important segments of the economy like construction and agriculture, price-adjusted production improved by 2.87 percent. And now it actually stands 2.16 percent higher than during that last pre-CCP Virus month of February, 2020.

Although the semiconductor shortage is bound to crimp production in many industries on top of automotive, domestic manufacturing still seems to be benefiting from two headwinds other than the economy’s generally improving strength that seem to have some staying power, too. The first is aerospace giant Boeing’s continuing, but sometimes uneven, progress exiting its protracted recent safety and manufacturing problems. The pandemic’s blow to air travel worldwide clearly didn’t help, either.

But in March, real output in aircraft and parts jumped by 4.09 percent sequentially, and is now fully 5.07 percent above its February, 2020 pre-CCP Virus level.

The picture was more mixed in the pharmaceutical and medicines category – which includes vaccines. Inflation-adjusted output advanced by 2.90 percent on month in March, but the previously reported January and February numbers were both downgraded dramatically – from an upwardly revised 2.57 percent to 0.85 percent, and from a 1.29 percent rise to a 0.05 percent dip. These moves left the sector’s output 5.83 percent higher than in pre-pandemic February, 2020 with the prospect of more impovement to come as vaccine production continues to boom.

Growth is still lagging, however, in the vital medical equipment and supplies sector – which includes virus-fighting items like face masks, face masks, protective gowns, and ventilators. February’s constant-dollar production was revised up from a 0.56 percent monthly decline to a 0.44 percent drop – but it was still a drop. Growth returned in March – but only by 0.61 percent in real terms. So price-adjusted output in this category – which includes many other products – is still slightly (0.39 percent) below pre-pandemic February, 2020’s levels, despite all the national talk of the need to improve America’s health security.

I’m still bullish on manufacturing’s outlook, though. No one should forget headwinds facing industry aside from the semiconductor shortage – chiefly, the fading of vaccine production at some point, the distinct possibility of many more regulations and higher taxes from a Democratic-conrolled federal government, and the supply chain disruptions resulting largely from clogged West Coast ports (which on top of the Trump tariffs are slowing the import of many foreign inputs still needed by Made in the USA companies).

But arguably more than offsetting these dangers is the so far better-than-expected resumption of total U.S. growth, the virtual certainty of even yet another gigantic dose of stimulus an infrastructure spending, along with President Biden’s decision to retain every dollar’s worth of those sweeping, often towering Trump trade curbs.

Yet much more important than my views is the continuing optimism registered by domestic manufacturers in all of the soft data surveys that come out each month from the private sector and from various branches of the Federal Reserve system. If they’re full of confidence, who am I to rain on their parade?

Making News: Podcast On-Line on Biden’s Infrastructure Plan and China…& More!

Tags

American Jobs Plan, Biden, CCP Virus, China, competitiveness, coronavirus, corporate taxes, COVID 19, Donald Trump, Gatestone Institute, Gordon G. Chang, green energy, green manufacturing, IndustryToday.com, infrastructure, Making News, manufacturing, recession, tariffs, tax policy, tax reform, taxes, The John Batchelor Show, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my latest interview on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show. Click here for a timely discussion among John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and me on whether President Biden’s infrastructure and competitiveness package really will strengthen America’s position relative to China. Oh yes – we also speculated about the fate of former President Trump’s China tariffs in the Biden era.  

In addition, yesterday, Gordon quoted my views on the matter in a post for the Gatestone Institute. Here‘s the link.

Finally, on March 31, IndustryToday.com re-published my RealityChek post on recent U.S. manufacturing data strongly indicating that those Trump tariffs have greatly helped domestic industry weather the CCP Virus pandemic and subsequent recession in impressive shape. Click here to read (or re-read!).

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Biden’s Trade Policies are Looking Trump-ier Than Ever

Tags

America First, arbitrage, Biden, China, economic nationalism, environmental standards, global minimum tax, globalism, globalization, infrastructure, Jake Sullivan, Janet Yellen, labor rights, race to the bottom, subsidies, tariffs, tax policy, taxes, Trade, trade Deals, trade wars, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As the author of a book titled The Race to the Bottom, you can imagine how excited I was to learn that the main rationale of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s new proposal for a global minimum tax on corporations is to prevent, or bring to an end, a…race to the bottom.

But this idea also raises a question with profound implications for U.S. trade and broader globalization policies: Why stop at tax policy? And it’s made all the more intriguing because (a) the Biden administration for which Yellen surprisingly seems aware that there’s no good reason to do so even though (b) the trade policy approach that could consequently emerge looks awfully Trump-y.

After all, the minimum tax idea reflects a determination to prevent companies from engaging in what’s known as arbitrage in this area. It’s like arbitrage in any situation – pitting providers and producers that boast little leverage into competition with one another to sell their goods and services at the lowest possible price, and usually triggering a series of ever more cut-rate offers.

These kinds of interactions differ from ordinary price competition because, as mentioned above, the buyer usually holds much more power than the seller. So the results are too often determined by considerations of raw power, not the kinds of overall value considerations that explain why market forces have been so successful throughout history.

When the arbitrage concerns policy, the results can be much more disturbing. It’s true that the ability of large corporations to seek the most favorable operating environments available can incentivize countries to substitute smart policies for dumb in fields such as regulation and of course taxation. But it’s also true, as my book and so many other studies have documented, that policy arbitrage can force countries to seek business with promises and proposals that can turn out to be harmful by any reasonable definition.

Some of the most obvious examples are regulations so meaningless that they permit inhumane working conditions to flourish and pollution to mount, and encourage tax rates to fall below levels needed to pay for public services responsibly. Not coincidentally, Yellen made clear that the latter is a major concern of hers. And the Biden administration says it will intensify enforcement of provisions in recent U.S. trade deals aimed at protecting workers and the environment – and make sure that any new agreements contain the same. I’ve been skeptical that many of these provisions can be enforced adequately (see, e.g., here), but that’s a separate issue. For now, the important point is that such arbitrage, and the lopsided trade flows and huge deficits they’ve generated, harm U.S.-based producers and their employees, too.

But as my book and many other studies have also documented, safety and environmental arbitrage aren’t the only instances of such corporate practices by a long shot. Businesses also hop around the world seeking currency arbitrage (in order to move jobs and production to countries that keep the value of their currencies artificially low, thereby giving goods and services turned out in these countries equally artificial, non-market-related advantages over the competition). Ditto for government subsidies – which also influence location decisions for reasons having nothing to do with free markets, let alone free trade. The victims of these versions of policy arbitrage, moreover, have been overwhelmingly American.

The Biden administration is unmistakably alert to currency and subsidy arbitrage. Indeed a major element of its infrastructure plan is providing massive support for the U.S. industry in general, and to specific sectors like semiconductors to lure jobs and production back home and keep it there. Revealingly, though, it’s decided for the time being to keep in place former President Trump’s steep, sweeping tariffs on China, and on steel and aluminum.

So it looks like the President has resolved to level these playing fields by cutting off corporate policy arbitrage opportunities of all types with a wide range of tools. And here’s where the outcome could start looking quintessentially Trump-y and America First-y. For it logically implies that the United States shouldn’t trade much – and even at all – with countries whose systems and policy priorities can’t promote results favorable to Americans.

Still skeptical? Mr. Biden and his leading advisers have also taken to talking about making sure that “Every action we take in our conduct abroad, we must take with American working families in mind.” More specifically, the President’s White House national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, wrote pointedly during the campaign that U.S. leaders

“must move beyond the received wisdom that every trade deal is a good trade deal and that more trade is always the answer. The details matter. Whatever one thinks of the TPP [the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal], the national security community backed it unquestioningly without probing its actual contents. U.S. trade policy has suffered too many mistakes over the years to accept pro-deal arguments at face value.”

He even went so far as to note that “the idea that trade will necessarily make both parties better off so long as any losers could in principle be compensated is coming under well-deserved pressure within the field of economics.”

But no one should be confident that economic nationalism will ultimately triumph in Biden administration counsels. There’s no doubt that the U.S. allies that the President constantly touts as the keys to American foreign policy success find these views to be complete anathema. And since Yellen will surely turn out to be Mr. Biden’s most influential economic adviser, it’s crucial to mention that her recent speech several times repeated all the standard tropes mouthed for decades by globalization cheerleaders about U.S. prosperity depending totally on prosperity everywhere else in the world.

Whether she’s right or wrong (here I presented many reasons for concluding the latter), that’s clearly a recipe for returning trade policy back to its pre-Trump days – including the long-time willingness of Washington to accept what it described as short-term sacrifices (which of course fell most heavily on the nation’s working class) in order to build and maintain prosperity abroad that would benefit Americans eventually, but never seemed to pan out domestically.

Nor is Yellen the only potential powerful opponent of less doctrinaire, more populist Biden trade policies. Never, ever forget that Wall Street and Silicon Valley were major contributors to the President’s campaign coffers. Two greater American enthusiasts for pre-Trump trade policies you couldn’t possibly find.

And yet, here we are, more than two months into the Biden presidency, and key pieces of a Trump-y trade policy both in word and deed keep appearing.  No one’s more surprised than I am (see, e.g., here).  But as so often observed, it took a lifelong anti-communist hardliner like former President Richard M. Nixon to engineer America’s diplomatic opening to Mao-ist China. And it took super hard-line Zionist Menachem Begin, Israel’s former Prime Minister, to sign a piece treaty with long-time enemy Egypt. So maybe it’s not so outlandish to suppose that a died-in-the-wool globalist like Joe Biden will be the President establishing America First and economic nationalism as the nation’s new normals in trade and globalization policy.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: “Joe Science” – Finally?

Tags

Barack Obama, Biden, Bill Clinton, Congressional Research Service, defense, dual-use technologies, George W. Bush, infrastructure, National Science Foundation, research and development, science, scientists, technology, {What's Left of) Our Economy

President Biden is a champion of science – everyone knows this, right? He promises to follow it on major issues like the CCP Virus. He’s pledged to boost Washington’s funding of research and development. He’s blasted his predecessor for neglecting this responsibility. (See here for examples of the last two statements.)  And the scientific community the world over is brimming with confidence that greater respect from the White Houe and more resources are on the way.  (See, e.g., here and here.)

Judging from his remarks unveiling his big new infrastructure plans, it looks like Mr. Biden will indeed bolster the federal government’s support for science and technology. And that’s great news, because such efforts will be crucial to meeting any number of big public policy challenges and seizing equally important opportunities. Dealing with enviromental threats, beating back the China challenge, and boosting the nation’s productivity – its best hope for raising living standards on a sustainable basis – are just a few that come to mind.

And if you’re one of those who believe the Feds can’t do anything right, you need to learn some history. Washington has a formidable record both on the basic research and applied research sides. (Here’s an impressive list from America’s National Laboratories system, and it doesn’t even include major advances fostered by other agencies in medicine, agriculture, aerospace, and information technology – some of which are summarized here.)

Mr. Biden also is unmistakably right about America having fallen behind on these fronts. But what he hasn’t told you, and what his scientific backers seem to have forgotten, is that in the last roughly quarter century, federal science and technology spending in toto never stagnated as much as during the administration he served as Vice President.

The data below are calculated from the annual research and development budget requests made by U.S. Presidents going back to the Clinton years. (For the data from 1998 through 2015, see the National Science Foundation reports archived here.  For the later data years, see the annual Congressional Research Service reports here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Since Congress has the authority to raise or lower these requests, these figures don’t measure actual federal research and development spending by year. But they do shed light on how much various Presidents sought to spend, and by extension how greatly they valued nurturing such activity, how much they believed they could convince Congress actually to appropriate – and, by implication, how hard they were willing to push to achieve these goals.

In this vein, during his second term, Bill Clinton’s overall annual federal research and development budget requests rose by a total of 15.54 percent.

During the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, such Executive Branch requests increased by 43.91 percent.

For the eight years of Barack Obama’s administration? These requests climbed by 6.56 percent.

And under supposed science denier Donald Trump? They were up 20.82 percent.

Some important qualifications need to be made here. The big Bush increases were driven by major new asks for defense-related R&D (think “September 11,” “Global War on Terror,” and “Iraq”). Indeed, during his administration, such spending grew from 52.47 percent of total federal research and development spending to 58.97 percent. And when you draw this distinction, the Obama (-Biden) record looks better if you value civilian research over military. Here’s how recent Presidential requests compare on that score.

Clinton civilian requests: +25.67 percent

Bush civilian requests: +24.24 percent

Obama civilian requests: +34.26 percent

Trump civilian requests: +19.07 percent

But the Obama-(Biden) record doesn’t look that much better, especially than the Trump record. After all, that 34.26 percent increase took place over eight years, not four. And the Obama-Bush comparison, and other Obama comparisons, need to take into account the ever-blurring line between defense and non-defense-related research and development, because so many new technologies can be used in both fields and spur progress in both. That is, advances in defense knowhow can and do produce spin-off effects in the civilian world, and vice versa.

It still remains to be seen how the Biden infrastructure plan translates into specific research and development budget requests. But for now at least, Americans can be grateful that the Joe Biden of 2021 seems to be much more of a science and tech enthusiast than the administration he worked for a decade ago. 

By the way, special thanks to Rafal Konapka, who first brought the recent federal research and development trends to my attention.

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing Revival Plans Still Need Trump-like Tariffs

Tags

Buy American, carbon tariff, carbon tax, Dan Breznitz, David Adler, health security, infrastructure, Joe Biden, manufacturing, manufacturing trade deficit, research and development, supply chains, tariffs, taxes, technology, The New York Times, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I was thrilled to see today’s op-ed piece on U.S. manufacturing in The New York Times, and not just because co-author David Adler is a good friend. I was also thrilled to see it because a careful reading reenforces the essential notion that all the worthy proposals made by policy analysts and politicians lately (including apparent President-elect Joe Biden) on reviving industry will either come to naught or greatly underperform without steep, and indeed Trump-like, tariffs to shut a critical mass of imports out of the economy.

Those domestically-focused manufacturing revival measures have included more federal funding for research and developments, greater federal efforts to help smaller manufacturers in particular learn about and access research breakthroughs in academia and existing government labs, measures to help these smaller industrial firms access capital more easily, tax breaks to foster production and innovation in the United States, and more ambitious and better enforced Buy American requirement for federal purchases of manufactured products. In general, I’m strongly supportive, and have even criticized the Trump administration for giving them short shrift (even on the tax front, where the big 2017 cuts should have come with more investing and hiring strings).

From knowing David, I feel sure that he backs these intiatives, too; indeed, the article concentrates tightly on the Buy American slice of this agenda. And the piece gratifingly (but probably unknowingly) endorses an idea that I’ve made for many years, but that has gotten zero traction: requiring “all manufacturing industries to disclose how much of their sourcing and critical production takes place in the United States.” After all, how can Washington make the right manufacturing policy decisions when it relies so heavily for such crucial information from crumbs self-servingly cherry-picked by offshoring-happy companies themselves?

Yet as also suggested by David and co-author Dan Breznitz – who studies innovation policies at the University of Toronto – except for the Buy American proposals, the standard raft of manufacturing revival plans could work to  stimulate more production and supply, but pays inadequate attention to ensuring that all that supply is actually bought – which would eventually make companies think twice about producing more.

The authors place much stock in government’s ability to soak up this output, and so does Biden – who on top of making sure that more of what government currently purchases is American-made, has pledged to spend “$400 billion in his first term in additional federal purchases of products made by American workers, with transparent, targeted investments that unleash new demand for domestic goods and services and create American jobs.”

The former Vice President correctly contends that these measures will “provide a strong, stable source of demand for products made by American workers and supply chains composed of American small businesses.” The history of U.S. industrial policy also shows that early guaranteed government purchases helped new industries demonstrate the usefulness of innovative products that eventually interested the private sector and produced enormous new markets for their products on top of federal contracts. (Think “computers” and all the hardware and software used pervasively now not only in technology sectors but in virtually the entire economy.)

But U.S.-based manufacturers turned out just over $2.35 trillion worth of goods in 2019 (the last full pre-CCP Virus year). And the manufacturing trade deficit that year was $1.03 trillion. So unless it’s supposed that that 2019 level of domestic manufacturing production is remotely adequate (and clearly, the manufacturing policy reform supporters don’t), or unless they believe that government should buy much more of the output than the $400 billion Biden proposes over not one but four years (to sit in warehouses?), generating more private demand for industry’s output will be essential as well.

As indicated above, David and Dan Breznitz argue that more detailed, accurate labeling will help by enabling more consumers and private businesses to act effectively on their naturally strong preferences for Made in the USA goods – not only out of patriotism, but because of reasonable convictions that their quality and safety are superior. I remain all in favor, but the immense popularity of imports among both classes of customers (made clear by the huge and chronic manufacturing trade deficits) despite numerous news accounts over the years of shoddy, outright dangerous foreign-made products (especially from China), demonstrates that much more will need to be done to spur demand for U.S.-produced manufactures.

RealityChek regulars will not be the slightest bit surprised that I’m ruling out overseas demand as a promising net new source of customers for American domestic manufacturers. Unfortunately, the persistence of the huge manufacturing trade deficits is also evidence that most of America’s international trade partners are far too devoted to the health of their own industrial bases to permit major U.S. inroads. In fact, if anything, they’re likely to step up their own efforts to strengthen their own domestic industries by further curbing U.S. and other foreign competition. And that’s where the tariffs come in.

Not that David and Dan Bernitz, or Biden, overlook the need for U.S. market protection entirely. The former, for example, call for “Stopping predatory pricing by foreign manufacturers” – which entails slapping tariffs on these usually government-subsidized artificially cheap goods. The latter makes similar points, and has also mentioned a carbon tariff on products from countries that base their competitiveness on ignoring “their climate and environmental obligations.” (At the same time, Biden could use a similar levy to punish domestic companies that don’t measure up in his administration’s eyes climate-wise, leaving the net benefit to U.S.-based manufacturing minimal.)

Moreover, to ensure adequate domestic supplies of the healthcare goods needed to fight the next pandemic, simple stockpiling of products by government will be necessary. And since practically everything wears out over time, or becomes outmoded, lots of re-stockpiling will be necessary. Meanwhile, it should go without saying that many of the government purchases of manufactures will be used for critical national purposes – like repairing and building all kinds of traditional and technology infrastructure systems, and producing whatever new military equipment or refurbishing of old equipment the new Congress and the likely new administration wind up supporting.

But these are of course public purposes, and since the United States is still a strongly private sector-driven economy, that’s what’s inevitably going to determine the success of most manufacturing revival efforts. So unless manufacturing revivalists want government to play a veritably dominant role in production and consumption decisions, their strategy will employ tariffs – but not in a targeted, sector-specific, and reactive way, much less as an afterthought to domestic initiatives. Instead, they’ll be proactive, come in a flat-rate form, and stand high enough to encourage plenty of new market entrants that it makes sense to join established enterprises in vigorous, overwhelmingly domestic competition for America’s immense pool of customers.

Im-Politic: Will Trump Let Trump be Trump on Issues?

Tags

Congress, conservatism, conservatives, Democrats, deregulation, establishment, Im-Politic, infrastructure, John McCain, Marco Rubio, midterm elections, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, Populism, regulation, Republicans, tax cuts, Trade, Trump

Ever since Donald Trump made clear his staying power in presidential politics, his more populist supporters have tried to beat back efforts of more establishment-oriented backers to “normalize” him by insisting that they “Let Trump be Trump.” The results of Tuesday’s midterm elections tell me that the populists’ arguments on substance (as opposed to the President’s penchant for inflammatory and/or vulgar rhetoric) are stronger than ever, but that the obstacles that they’ve faced remain formidable.

The “Let Trump” argument contends that the President’s best hope to attract the most voters has always been his willingness to reject positions that for decades have been conservative and Republican hallmarks, but that have become increasingly unpopular outside the realms of most national GOP office-holders, other Washington, D.C.-based professional Republicans and conservatives, and the donors so largely responsible for their power, influence, and affluence. These maverick Trump positions have included not only trade and immigration; but the role of government and the related issues of entitlements, healthcare, and infrastructure spending; and Wall Street reform.

But since his election, as I’ve argued, Mr. Trump’s willingness to embrace the full maverick agenda has been blunted by his vulnerability on the scandals front. Specifically, he’s seemed so worried about impeachment threats from Democrats that he’s been forced to shore up his support with the conventional Republicans that dominate the party’s ranks in Congress. Why else, I’ve written, would his first two years in office have so prominently featured strong support for right-of-center standbys like major tax and federal discretionary spending cuts; curbs on regulation; repeal of Obamacare; and bigger military budgets, rather than, say a massive push to repair and retool America’s aging or simply outdated transportation, communications, energy, and other networks?

It’s true that Trump remained firmly in (bipartisan) populist mode on trade (notably, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and slapping tariffs on metals imports and many Chinese-made products), and just as firmly in (conservative) populist mode with various administrative measures and proposals to limit and/or transform the makeup of legal immigration – though many of his most ardent backers accuse him of punting on his campaign promise to build a Border Wall.

Yet this Trump populism strongly reflected the views of the Republican base – a development now not lost on conventional conservatives when it comes to immigration, even though they’ve been slow to recognize the big shift among Republican voters against standard free trade policies. By contrast, the President has apparently feared that Congressional Republicans would draw the line on the rest of their traditional agenda – or at least that he could curry favor with them by pushing it.

The midterm results, however, might have brought these political calculations to a turning point. On the one hand, there’s no doubt that most House and Senate Republicans, along with the donors and most of the party’s D.C.-based establishment, are still all-in on their tax, spending, regulatory, and Obamacare positions.

On the other hand, according to the exit polls and other surveys, the tax cuts didn’t even greatly impress Republican voters (let alone independents). And most Americans aren’t willing to risk losing Obamacare benefits they already enjoy (especially coverage for pre-existing medical conditions) by supporting Republican replacement ideas that may be less generous.

The message being sent by all of the above trends and situations is that President Trump may have even more latitude than he’s recognized to cut deals with Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats’ capture of the House of Representatives on Tuesday and signs that they’ll ramp up the scandal investigations could keep preventing him from “being Trump” on such issues and possibly antagonize most Republican lawmakers.

Of course, my political neck isn’t on the line here. But I’d advise Mr. Trump to follow his more unconventional instincts. The Congressional Republicans still uncomfortable with him ideologically must be aware that his personal popularity with GOP supporters has grown significantly since mid-2017, and that this surge owes almost nothing to their own priorities. So if they don’t help staunchly resist any intensified Democratic probes, their political futures could look pretty dicey, too.

One big sign that ever more establishment Republicans are getting “woke” on the obsolescence of much establishment conservatism: the efforts by long-time mainstream conservative/Republican favorites like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida to develop a Trump-ian agenda that can survive Mr. Trump’s presidency. Further, resistance in Washington to their efforts is likely to continue weakening, since so many of the President’s ideological opponents on the Republican side are leaving the House and Senate. (And of course, their spiritual leader, veteran Arizona Senator and 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain recently passed away.)

To be sure, Mr. Trump yesterday (rhetorically, anyway) erected his own obstacle to deal-cutting – his declaration that he won’t be receptive if investigations persist and broaden. House Democratic leader (and still favorite to become Speaker again) Nancy Pelosi has pretty clearly, however, signaled that she herself is not impeachment-obsessed, even if those exit polls say most of the Democratic base is.

As a result, I can’t entirely blame the President for still feeling spooked by the Democrats – at least this week. But what an irony if the most important opponent “letting Trump be Trump-ism” – whose broad popularity could well combine with the advantages of incumbency to outflank the Democrats, win the President a second term, and pave the way for a truly earth-shaking, lasting realignment of American politics – turned out to be President Trump himself.

Making News: National Radio Podcast on the Economy and the Midterms Now On-Line…& More!

Tags

Breitbart News Tonight, China, conservatism, economy, health care, IndustryToday.com, infrastructure, Making News, midterm elections, midterms 2018, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, Trump

Last night I got another late-night national radio opportunity, so I couldn’t clue you in beforehand. But thank goodness for podcasts, because now you can listen on-line to my interview with Breitbart News Tonight on the U.S. economy and next week’s midterm elections.  Click on this link and then scroll down a fair ways until you see the episode with my name on it.

Also, it was great to see IndustryToday.com re-post my October 25 offering on a Wall Street Journal pundit who just unwittingly reminded Americans why a Trump-style course change in U.S. China trade policy was urgently needed.

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

Those Stubborn Facts: What Trump Voters Say They Want

Tags

2016 election, Immigration, infrastructure, Those Stubborn Facts, Trade, Trump

Non-College-Educated Whites’ Stated Top 2016 Presidential Election Issue Priorities*:

Building a Border Wall: 31%

Imposing Tariffs on Predatory U.S. Trade Partners: 65%

Improving Infrastructure: 65%

*From a January, 2017 survey

(Source: “With Fireworks, Washington Returns to the Core Trump Agenda,” by Gerald F. Seib, The Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-fireworks-washington-returns-to-the-core-trump-agenda-1516035795?mod=e2tw(

Making News: Interviewed on Buy American and Trade-Related Infrastructure Issues

Tags

Asset Leadership Network, Buy American, GAO, Government Accountability Office, infrastructure, Making News, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that the video is now on-line of an interview I gave last week on the intersection between infrastructure and trade policy issues – and specifically, on the future of the Buy American programs governing the public sector’s multi-billion dollar purchases of goods and services.

The session was sponsored by the Asset Leadership Network, an organization of professionals in engineering, architecture, construction, land-use planning, and related fields. One of their highest priorities: making sure that whatever infrastructure build-out and repair efforts the nation launches results in the best quality systems that create the biggest growth and employment bangs for taxpayers’ bucks.

It was gratifying to learn of the Network’s interest in my research into whether recent trade agreements covering government procurement – which affect the extent to which infrastructure systems are made out of American-produced manufactures and materials – are leveling global playing field as promised, and giving a fair-shake to U.S.-based businesses and their employees.

As RealityChek regulars know, the answer – according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) – is an emphatic “No.” And in this video, I describe the GAO’s main findings, as well as what they tell us about U.S. trade policy’s broader failures.

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