(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Doubts About U.S.-China Decoupling

Tags

American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, Biden, China, decoupling, Donald Trump, exchange students, export controls, foreign direct investment, investment, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Wall Street, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As known by RealityChek regulars, the biggest question surrounding U.S.-China economic relations is probably whether the two countries will “decouple” their trade and investment relations with each other.

For several reasons, I’ve been pretty optimistic that the disentangling of the two big economies will continue and even speed up. These include the sizable decoupling progress that’s already been made; the strong and still growing criticisms of China’s behavior pretty much across the issue board by the American public and their leaders; the Biden administration’s surprising decision to continue most of the major Trump anti-China policies; and Beijing’s own determination to bring commercial entities often misleadingly described as “private” businesses even more completely under its thumb and make operating in China ever harder for foreign companies. (See, e.g., here and here.)

But after reading a summary of a recent survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, I’m not so sure.

The organization, comprised of more than 1,300 companies, is one of the leading foreign business groups in the People’s Republic, and last month released its latest annual China Business Report. Among the key findings:

>77.9 percent of the 338 respondents said they were optimistic or slightly optimistic about their next five years in China – the highest such level since former President Trump’s trade war began in 2018.

>77.1 percent reported that their latest profits were higher than expected.

>More than 82 percent expected higher revenues this year than last year – which would represent growth levels “last seen before the worst days of the US-China trade war.”

>The share of respondents reporting annual growth in investment in China (59.5 percent) is also nearly back to 2018 levels (62 percent).

>And only 28 percent of responding manufacturers producing in China had any plans to move production out of the People’s Republic.

Meanwhile, even though its economy is experiencing major problems due largely to mounting energy shortages to an overly aggressive anti-pandemic policy to signs that its mammoth real estate sector will turn into an equally mammoth burst bubble, Wall Street seems more enthusiastic than ever about channeling capital to China.

Signs that decoupling is proceeding are by no means entirely gone. Data on U.S. direct investment (that is, investment in tangible assets like factories as opposed to financial investments like stocks and bonds) for 2021 aren’t available yet, but figures for last year (reported in the above linked RealityChek post) showed that two-way flows continued a decline that dated from before the pandemic slowed both economies dramatically. Moreover, China’s crackdown on its big tech entities has included discouraging them from listing on American stock exchanges.

We do have 2021 goods trade data, and through the first half of this year, U.S. imports from China remained a smaller share of the entire U.S. economy (0.51 percent of annualized gross domestic product) than in the first quarter of 2018 – the last pre-trade war quarter (0.61 percent). Interestingly, the export ratio has returned to those 2018 levels (0.16 percent).

Moreover, since the flow of people back and forth was another major measure of how the United States and China had been drawing closer together, it’s also worth noting evidence that even though overall foreign student applications to American colleges and universities have resumed rising, they’re falling from China.

Since I’m not clairvoyant, I’m not going to pretend to know whether decoupling will slow or stop or accelerate again. But this scenario seems at least plausible: Goods trade between the two countries will keep stagnating at best (especially if the bulk of the Trump tariffs stays in place, and if President Biden keeps expanding controls on defense-related tech exports); but unless the Biden administration puts new clamps on, flows of capital – especially from the United States to China – will keep picking up.

Moreover, as explained by a Financial Times columnist, not only will these investments greatly increase the resources available to China’s dictators. They will also inevitably help China “put its savings to good use.” Which means that U.S.-China commercial interactions could well boomerang in numerous dangeorous ways against Americans even more than they do already.

Those Stubborn Facts: How to Keep Inflating a China Bubble

Tags

bubbles, China, Evergrande, finance, investment, investors, property, real estate, Those Stubborn Facts, Wall Street

Share of global finance industry recommendations on China

investment that were “buys” at the start of this year, before its giant

real estate firms started going broke: 86 percent

 

Share of global finance industry recommendations on China

investment that are “buys” today, when its giant real estate firms

have started going broke: 87 percent

 

(Source: “Down Is Still Up for Foreign Investors Piling Into China,” by Nikos Chrysoloras and Abhishek Vishnoi, Bloomberg.com, October 16, 2021, China Stock Market: Down Is Still Up for Foreign Investors – Bloomberg)

 

Those Stubborn Facts: How the U.S. Lost the Global Semiconductor Manufacturing Tech Lead

Tags

capex, capital spending, China, infotech, innovation, Intel, investment, manufacturing, microchips, national security, Samsung, semiconductors, South Korea, Taiwan, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, tech, Those Stubborn Facts

“North America-” (i.e., U.S.-) Owned Firms’ Share of Global Semiconductor Capital Spending, 1990: 31 percent

“North America-” (i.e., U.S.-) Owned Firms’ Share of Global Semiconductor Capital Spending, 2019: 28 percent

“Asia-Pac/Others*- Owned Firms’ Share of Global Semiconductor Capital Spending, 1990: 10 percent

“Asia-Pac/Others*-Owned Firms’ Share of Global Semiconductor Capital Spending, 2019: 63 percent

*Excludes Japan. Includes Taiwan, South Korea, and China

(Source: “A Path to Success for the EU Semiconductor Industry,” by Michael Alexander and Thomas Kirschstein, Roland Berger, February 12, 2021, https://www.rolandberger.com/en/Insights/Publications/A-path-to-success-for-the-EU-semiconductor-industry.html)

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Too Little China Realism Too Late from the U.S. Chamber

Tags

China, Daniel Rosen, decoupling, economics, investment, national security, Rhodium Group, Trade, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has just released a report warning of the high costs of any efforts to decouple the American economy from China’s completely. That’s not especially big news: The Chamber has long campaigned for closer trade and investment ties with the People’s Republic, which until very recently have been clearcut boons to the bottom lines of the multinational companies that run this premier American business organization.

What is big news is that the Chamber hasn’t come out against decoupling as such. Far from it, and that’s noteworthy. But the report, and the China record of groups like Chamber, also reenforce the importance of asking and answering a big question about U.S. strategy toward this increasingly wealthy, powerful, and hostile Asian giant that American political leaders and news organizations keep energetically ducking.

First, though, the report’s overall conclusion deserves highlighting. According to principal author Daniel Rosen, an analyst with a consulting firm called the Rhodium Group, “U.S.-China engagement was always contingent on shared liberal economic goals. As Beijing diverges back toward greater state planning, a less permissive stance is necessary. But our self-interest lies in purposeful decoupling, not a gratuitous pulling apart. This study is a step toward re-sizing our engagement rationally.”

These points matter because despite the Chamber’s claim that it’s “long advocated for a balanced and rational approach to commercial relations with China,” especially when key decisions were being made, it’s consistently described the choices faced by Americans in the crudest either-or terms possible. As one of its members told a Congressional hearing in 2000, as the nation was debating the landmark question of whether to accept China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), “We have a simple choice to make. We can either embrace and profit from China as a trading partner, or stick our heads in the sand and hope they go away.”

Yet however welcome the Chamber’s new acknowledgement that greater Sino-American economic integration and trade, investment, and technology flows aren’t always net winners for the United States, it’s troubling that the study chose to focus on the economic downsides of “complete disengagement” and “full decoupling” from China. For any change of the kind is many years away at best, and no major voices have recommended that it be accomplished immediately.

Further, the report’s overarching assessment that “the costs of anything approaching ‘full’ decoupling are uncomfortably high” is torpedoed by an analytical framework that the Chamber itself admits is woefully deficient practically across-the-board.

For example, readers early on will learn that “because of the many variables at play, it is beyond the capacity of economics to deliver a precise answer regarding the costs of decoupling” and that the report’s “estimations are derived from economic models of ‘normal’ before the COVID-19 pandemic; the macroeconomic assumptions about future supply and demand that such models depend on must now be viewed with great skepticism.” The honesty is refreshing, but also casts doubt on the point of the entire exercise, as it’s a high-falutin’ way of saying “Garbage in, garbage out.”

A closely related flaw: Nowhere does the study look at the counterfactual – that is, the impact on the U.S. economy of maintaining the degree of decoupling that’s been achieved already, or of expanding it on the margins. This failure is especially serious since the Chamber itself agrees that decoupling has long been high Chinese priority – at least since 2006, when Beijing (formally) announced an “indigenous innovation” policy that (in the Chamber’s words) sought to “reduce reliance on foreign technology.”

The Chamber also admits that its analyses “explore only the economic welfare effects: they do not attempt to price in the costs or benefits to U.S. security, which is a critical factor in the rethink of engagement with China.” But enhancing national security in all of its dimensions – including the supply chain vulnerabilities highlighted by the pandemic in medical goods of all kinds, and by Intel’s loss of the global lead in semiconductor manufacturing knowhow in the information technology sector – is, as the authors write, “a critical factor in the rethink of engagement with China.”

No one with a brain in their head would insist that no economic costs will be incurred from significant decoupling. (And yes, in this vein, former President Trump was wrong to boast that when it comes to countries running big surpluses with the United States, “trade wars are” both “good and easy to win.”) It’s the nature of the tradeoffs that now most urgently needs careful examination.

These problems in turn lead to the big question mentioned above. Every American whether acting on their own or in groups has every right to participate in the China policy debate. But the supporters and opponents of ever greater engagement have been vying for decades now, and having been a leader of the former, the Chamber ranks prominently among the losers on the substance. Why, therefore, since the organization and its allies have been so behind the curve for so long, should their input deserve much credibility today?

Sure, as made clear by the Chamber report and the China policy shift seen throughout the mainstreams of the American business, political, and policy communities (at least rhetorically), some learning has taken place. But where’s the evidence that the engagers’ views and instincts are any on target and more valuable in this new environment than they were in years past, when they steered American policy so incompetently, and in fact largely created the current danger? The positions they back today might have worked had they been put into effect before China became such an economic, technological, and military force. But now that the damage has been done, why believe that they’ll suffice now?

At the least, the engagers should face the burden of explaining why their abysmal record over so many years still entitles them to a serious hearing. And it’s even more reasonable to assume that if the likes of the Chamber are backing limited decoupling nowadays, the best course for America is pursuing this goal even  more aggressively and comprehensively.

Making News: Biden China Setback Post Re-Published in The National Interest

Tags

alliances, allies, China, EU, European Union, globalism, investment, Joe Biden, Making News, multilateralism, The National Interest

I’m pleased to announce that my recent RealityChek post on the European Union’s decision to sign an investment agreement with China, and how it’s trashed apparent President-elect Joe Biden’s globalist dreams of a multilateralist, allies-centric China policy, was re-published yesterday as a blog item by The National Interest. Click here to read – or re-read – with a snazzier layout!

And all throughout the year, keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: US Allies Have Just Trashed Biden’s Allies-Centric China Policy

Tags

alliances, allies, America First, Biden, China, European Union, globalism, investment, Jake J. Sullivan, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Phase One, Trump

Apparent President-elect Joe Biden says that, although he’s hoping for and expects some cooperation from Congresional Republicans once he assumes office, he’s also ready for a “punch in the mouth” from his political opponents.

This morning, though, he faces an at least equally important question about both political pugilism and about his vaunted foreign policy expertise: Has he been ready for a punch in the mouth from America’s allies? Because that’s what he’s just gotten from the European Union, which has just announced that it’s reached what it, anyway, touts as a major investment deal with China.

The agreement matters because Biden’s core claim about America’s China policy lately (in his supposedly post-flagrant coddling phase), has been that President Trump has gotten it all wrong about countering Beijing’s threats to U.S. national security economic interests with an “America First” approach that’s antagonized allies like the Europeans. He says he’ll meet the Chinese challenge much more effectively by fostering a united anti-Beijing front with these countries.

The former Vice President – and most of his fellow globalists in the U.S. foreign policy establishment who made the same arguments (e.g., here) – consistently overlooked the gaping holes in this case. Economically speaking both leading European and Asian allies have created and long maintained mutually beneficial trade and investment ties with China. Worse, many of their gains came at America’s expense, since Germany, Japan, and South Korea in particular supplied much of the capital equipment for the export-oriented Chinese manufacturing sector that relied crucially on selling to the United States – not back into their markets. (See here for Asia’s trade with China and the United States and here for Germany’s.)

Since the Trump tariffs on U.S. imports from China were threatening this lucrative arrangement, the allies were bound to be dead set against any American efforts to balance trade flows in particular better.

In terms of national security, these allies have nearly all practiced cynical defense free-riding, skimping on their own defense spending while counting on Washington to ride to their rescue if events go south. A key aim of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy was pushing the allies to act – after decades of globalist enabling – as if their own security mattered at least as much to them as to the United States. But the dogged resistance of most of the Europeans and Asians makes clear their determination to stay on the sidelines militarily, too.

The European Union (EU)’s talks with Beijing on the investment deal represented the first test of the Biden China strategy, and it’s failure couldn’t be more clear. The negotiations began in early 2014, but progress was modest until China evidently concluded that the end of the Trump era created a golden, costless, risk-less chance to notch a major diplomatic triumph. (See here for a good, short account.)

With a few concessions on protectionist practices that look just as vague and unenforceable as China’s standard pledges of economic good behavior, and promises on human rights abuses and climate change that appear even emptier, the big logjams were broken, and the Europeans wasted no time in seizing the resulting opportunity to curry favor with the Chinese.

And the EU’s haste was especially noteworthy because it amounted to an unmistakable rejection of a public Biden team request to consult and coordinate with the incoming administration before it moved forward. Although in response to news of rapid progress on the agreement, Biden’s national security adviser-designate Jake J. Sullivan tweeted on December 21 that “The Biden-Harris administration would welcome early consultations with our European partners on our common concerns about China’s economic practices,” the Europeans steamed ahead anyway.

The Europeans insist that their deal with China simply places their economic ties with the People’s Republic on the same footing as America’s as a result of the “Phase One” trade deal signed by President Trump a year ago. But this position doesn’t pass the laugh test, as there’s no evidence that China has made specific commitments to buy EU products and services, or that the investment deal’s enforcement mechanism is as loophole-free as that secured by Washington. (See this article for a detailed analysis of the Trump agreement.)

There’s no question that U.S. efforts to counter China would be more effective with genuine allied help than without it. But since the allies clearly aren’t on board with this agenda, any further Biden insistence on a multilateral approach would demonstrate that he’s not serious about this goal, either. Fortunately for the United States, for the last four years, it’s had a President who’s realized that the nation’s own devices – and maximizing the national strength and wealth behind them – are by far its best guarantee of satisfactorily advancing and defending its own China-related interests. Unless the allies or Biden change their tacks quickly, expect the next four years to be ones marked by major Chinese gains, and an America that’s considerably less secure and prosperous.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. and Other Foreign Investors Keep Funding the China Threat

Tags

bonds, China, decoupling, delisting, FDI, Financial Times, foreign direct investment, investment, Joe Biden, pension funds, Phase One, portfolio investment, Steven A. Schoenfeld, stock markets, stocks, Trade, trade surplus, Trump, Wall Street, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Here’s one of the most depressing articles I’ve read in a long time, and it deals with a (big) piece of U.S.-China economic relations to which I haven’t paid enough attention so far:  flows of financial investment.

It’s depressing because it shows that, although the Trump administration has (rightly, in my view) begun to decouple America’s economy from China’s, and made impressive progress in trade and foreign direct investment (purchases of “hard assets,” like factories and labs and enterprises and real estate), portfolio investment (purchases of stocks and bonds) into China from around the world is not only continuing – it’s booming. And these capital flows, including resources from Americans, are already much bigger than direct investment flows and are  rapidly approaching even the mammoth scale of trade flows.

According to this Financial Times piece, in total, investors outside China this year have bought about $150 billion worth of Chinese stocks and bonds – including Chinese government bonds. (Not that the debt of Chinese entities practically speaking differs fundamentally from national and local Chinese government debt, since there’s no private sector worthy of the name in China.)

The Financial Times reports that the vast majority of these inflows are bond purchases, meaning that investors outside China are lending to all manner of borrowers inside the People’s Republic. But buys of stocks in the Chinese entities commonly and misleadingly described as “companies” that presumably closely resemble their counterparts in genuine free market systems matter as well, because they, too, make new resources available to the Chinese regime. And after suffering from net outflows earlier this year, when Beijing locked down much of the country’s economy after the CCP Virus broke out, Chinese stocks are enjoying net inflows once again.

Moreover, China is starting to enjoy this foreign capital windfall just as its own ability to generate the savings needed to finance the huge debts that have fueled the latest phase of its ongoing economic expansion has begun weakening. Indeed, the need to replace faltering domestic capital sources with foreign capital is exactly what’s behind Beijing’s recent spate of decisions to reduce the barriers to overseas investing in China’s financial markets.

Foreign purchases of Chinese financial assets are still dwarfed by China’s global trade surplus (i.e., its profits) this year, which stands at just under $500 billion through November. But they’re now twice as great as global direct investment in China (about $115 billion through October, Beijing reports).

Obviously, the Trump administration can’t directly control non-U.S. foreign investment into China. But capital coming from the United States hasn’t exactly been chump change. I haven’t been able to find official data, but Steven A. Schoenfeld of the investment research and advisory firm MV Index Solutions, who has been investigating this issue for several years, has written that, in 2019, “nearly $400 billion of new foreign investment into Chinese equities was driven by changes in allocations within benchmark indexes, with American investors accounting for more than a third of these massive portfolio flows.” In addition, he has estimated that the 30 largest U.S. public workers’ pension plans had invested more than $50 billion in Chinese entities as of the beginning of this year. (Full disclosure: Steven is a long-time close personal friend.)

The Trump administration belatedly has tried to curb American portfolio investment in China, and has both forced a big federal workers’ pension fund to halt a planned great increase its China holdings, and has ordered a ban on all U.S. financial investment in dozens of companies linked to the Chinese military.

But unless more comprehensive curbs are enacted, the decisions by Wall Street research firms to boost China’s presence in the stock indices they construct, and which both government pension and private fund managers generally try to track, will still ensure that these investors’ exposure to China keeps rising. And the lure of expanded opportunities in China’s already huge and potentially huge-er financial services market, and its still healthily growing real economy, will continue fueling American and other foreign investors’ appetite for both Chinese stocks and bonds. Ironically, the President’s Phase One trade deal could help sustain and even increase U.S. investments in China via the commitments China has made to ease barriers to entry for American finance companies.

In fact, Steven Schoenfeld’s research makes clear that overall, despite these Trump administration curbs, total foreign holdings of Chinese stocks and bonds could approach and even exceed the half trillion dollar level in the next two or three years. These sums would equal several percentage points of China’s total economy.

Nor does the foreign financial support for China stop there. Although the Trump administration and Congress have been working to tighten the standards Chinese entities must meet to list on U.S. stock exchanges, their presence in the three biggest such financial markets as of October had allowed them to achieve total market capitalization of $2.2 trillion.

Of course, the Trump years seem to be nearing a close, raising the question of whether apparent President-elect Joe Biden will try to tighten the clamps on U.S. capital flows further and even encourage American allies to do the same, or whether he’ll simply let current trends continue, or open the flood gates further.  Something we do know for sure:  Investors in Chinese markets seem awfully confident that Washington will let them continue with their version of selling Beijing the rope with which it can hang the free world.  Why else would Chinese stock prices be way up since his apparent election? 

Im-Politic: VP Debate Questions That Should be Asked

Tags

1619 Project, African Americans, Barack Obama, Biden, budget deficits, CCP Virus, censorship, China, Confederate monuments, Constitution, coronavirus, COVID 19, education, election 2020, Electoral College, filibuster, Founding Fathers, free speech, healthcare, history, history wars, Im-Politic, inequality, investment, Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, national security, Obamacare, police killings, propaganda, protests, racism, riots, semiconductors, slavery, spending, Supreme Court, systemic racism, Taiwan, tariffs, tax cuts, taxes, Trade, trade war, Trump, Vice Presidential debate, Wuhan virus

Since I don’t want to set a record for longest RealityChek post ever, I’ll do my best to limit this list of questions I’d like to see asked at tonight’s Vice Presidential debate to some subjects that I believe deserve the very highest priority, and/or that have been thoroughly neglected so far during this campaign.

>For Vice President Mike Pence: If for whatever reason, President Trump couldn’t keep the CCP Virus under control within his own White House, why should Americans have any faith that any of his policies will bring it under control in the nation as a whole?

>For Democratic candidate Senator Kamala Harris: What exactly should be the near-term goal of U.S. virus policy? Eliminate it almost completely (as was done with polio)? Stop its spread? Slow its spread? Reduce deaths? Reduce hospitalizations? And for goals short of complete elimination, define “slow” and “reduce” in terms of numerical targets.

>For Pence: Given that the administration’s tax cuts and spending levels were greatly ballooning the federal budget deficit even before the virus struck, isn’t it ridiculous for Congressional Republicans to insist that total spending in the stimulus package remain below certain levels?

For Harris: Last month, the bipartisan Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus unveiled a compromise stimulus framework. President Trump has spoken favorably about it, while stopping short of a full endorsement. Does Vice President Biden endorse it? If so, has he asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to sign on? If he doesn’t endorse it, why not?

For Pence: The nation is in the middle of a major pandemic. Whatever faults the administration sees in Obamacare, is this really the time to be asking the Supreme Court to rule it un-Constitutional, and throw the entire national health care system into mass confusion?

For Harris: Would a Biden administration offer free taxpayer-financed healthcare to illegal aliens? Wouldn’t this move strongly encourage unmanageable numbers of migrants to swamp U.S. borders?

For Pence: President Trump has imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese exports headed to U.S. markets. But U.S. investors – including government workers’ pension funds – still keep sending equally large sums into Chinese government coffers. When is the Trump administration finally going to plug this enormous hole?

For Harris: Will a Biden administration lift or reduce any of the Trump China or metals tariffs. Will it do so unconditionally? If not, what will it be seeking in return?

For both: Taiwan now manufactures the world’s most advanced semiconductors, and seems sure to maintain the lead for the foreseeable future. Does the United States now need to promise to protect Taiwan militarily in order to keep this vital defense and economic knowhow out of China’s hands?

For Pence: Since the administration has complained so loudly about activist judges over-ruling elected legislators and making laws themselves, will Mr. Trump support checking this power by proposing term limits or mandatory retirement ages for Supreme Court Justices? If not, why not?

For Harris: Don’t voters deserve to know the Biden Supreme Court-packing position before Election Day? Ditto for his position on abolishing the filibuster in the Senate.

>For Pence: The Electoral College seems to violate the maxim that each votes should count equally. Does the Trump administration favor reform? If not, why not?

>For Harris: Many Democrats argue that the Electoral College gives lightly populated, conservative and Republican-leaning states outsized political power. But why, then, was Barack Obama able to win the White House not once but twice?

>For Pence: Charges that America’s police are killing unarmed African Americans at the drop of a hat are clearly wild exaggerations. But don’t you agree that police stop African-American pedestrians and drivers much more often than whites without probable cause – a problem that has victimized even South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott?

For Harris: Will Biden insist that mayors and governors in cities and states like Oregon and Washington, which have been victimized by chronic antifa violence, investigate, arrest and prosecute its members and leaders immediately? And if they don’t, will he either withhold federal law enforcement aid, or launch such investigations at the federal level?

For Pence: Why should any public places in America honor Confederate figures – who were traitors to the United States? Can’t we easily avoid the “erasing history” danger by putting these monuments in museums with appropriate background material?

For Harris: Would a Biden administration support even peacefully removing from public places statues and monuments to historic figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because their backgrounds included slave-holding?

For both: Shouldn’t voters know much more about the Durham Justice Department investigation of official surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2015 and 2016 before Election Day?

For both: Should the Big Tech companies be broken up on antitrust grounds?

For both: Should internet and social media platforms be permitted to censor any form of Constitutionally permitted speech?

For Pence: Doesn’t the current system of using property taxes to fund most primary and secondary public education guarantee that low-income school children will lack adequate resources?

For Harris: Aren’t such low-income students often held back educationally by non-economic factors like generations of broken families and counter-productive student behavior, as well as by inadequate school funding – as leading figures like Jesse Jackson (at least for one period) and former President Obama have claimed?

For Pence: What’s the difference between the kind of “patriotic education” the President says he supports and official propaganda?

For Harris: Would a Biden administration oppose local school districts using propagandistic material like The New York Times‘ U.S. history-focused 1619 Project for their curricula? Should federal aid to districts that keep using such materials be cut off or reduced?

Now it’s your turn, RealityChek readers! What questions would you add? And which of mine would you deep six?

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Evidence that the Multinationals Really Did Sell the U.S. Out to China

Tags

capital spending, chemicals, China, computers, electronics, health security, healthcare goods, information technology, investment, Lenin, manufacturing, multinational companies, national security, offshoring, offshoring lobby, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, pharmaceuticals, research and development, supply chains, tech, tech transfer, U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission, USCC, World Trade Organization, WTO

RealityChek readers and anyone who’s familiar with my work over many years know that I’ve often lambasted U.S. multinational companies for powerfully aiding and abetting China’s rise to the status of economic great power status – and of surging threat to U.S. national security and prosperity. In fact, the dangers posed by China’s activities and goals have become so obvious that even the American political and policy establishments that on the whole actively supported the policies – and that permitted money from this corporate Offshoring Lobby to drive their decisions – are paying attention.

If you still doubt how these big U.S. corporations have sold China much of the rope with which it’s determined to hang their own companies and all of America (paraphrasing Lenin’s vivid supposed description of and prediction about the perilously shortsighted greed of capitalists), you should check out the latest report of the U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC). As made clear by this study from an organization set up by Congress to monitor the China threat, not only have the multinationals’ investments in China figured “prominently in China’s national development ambitions.” They also “may indirectly erode the United States’ domestic industrial competitiveness and technological leadership relative to China.”

Worst of all, “as U.S. MNE (“multinational enterprise) activity in China increasingly focuses on the production of high-end technologies, the risk that U.S. firms are unwittingly enabling China to achieve its industrial policy and military development objectives rises.”

And a special bonus – these companies’ offshoring has greatly increased America’s dependence on China for supplies of crucial healthcare goods.

Here’s just a sampling of the evidence presented (and taken directly by the Commission from U.S. government reports):

> U.S. multinationals “employ more people in China than in any other country outside of the United States, primarily in the assembly of computers and electronic products.” Moreover, this employment skyrocketed by 574.6 percent from 2000 to 2017.

> “China is the fourth-largest destination for U.S. MNE research and development (R&D) expenditure and increasingly competes with advanced economies in serving as a key research hub for U.S. MNEs. The growth of U.S. MNE R&D expenditure in China is also comparatively accelerated, averaging 13.6 percent yearon-year since 2003 compared with 7.1 percent for all U.S. MNE foreign affiliates in the same period. This expenditure is highest in manufacturing, particularly in the production of computers and electronic products.”

> “U.S. MNE capital expenditure in China has focused on the creation of production sites for technology products. This development is aided by the Chinese government’s extensive policy support to develop China.”

> The multinationals’ capital spending on semiconductor manufacturing assets “has jumped 166.7 percent from $1.2 billion in 2010 (the earliest year for which complete [U.S government] data is available) to $3.2 billion in 2017, accounting for 90 percent of all U.S. MNE expenditure on computers and electronic products manufacturing assets in China.”

> “China has grown from the 20th-highest source of U.S. MNE affiliate value added in 2000 ($5.5 billion) to the fifth highest in 2017 ($71.5 billion), driven primarily by the manufacture of computers and electronic products as well as chemicals. The surge is especially notable in semiconductors and other electronic components.”

> “[P]harmaceutical manufacturing serves as the largest chemical sector in terms of value-added [a measure of manufacturing output that seeks to eliminate double-counting of output by stripping out the contribution of intermediate goods used in final products]…” And chemicals – the manufacturing category that include pharmaceuticals – has become the second largest U.S-owned industry in China measured by the value of its assets (after computers and electronic products).

Incidentally, the report’s tendency to use 2000 as a baseline year for examining trends is no accident. That’s the year before China was admitted into the World Trade Organization (WTO) – and the numbers strongly reenforce the argument that the multinationals so avidly sought this objective in order to make sure that the value of their huge planned investments in China wouldn’t be kneecapped by any unilateral U.S. tariffs on imports from China (including those from their factories). For the WTO’s combination of consensus decision-making plus the protectionist natures of most of its members’ economies created a towering obstacle to Washington acting on its own to safeguard legitimate American domestic economic interests from Chinese and other foreign predatory trade and broader economic activity.

At the same time, despite the WTO’s key role in preserving the value of the multinationals’ export-focused China investments, the USCC study underestimates how notably such investment remains geared toward exporting, including to the United States. This issue matters greatly because chances are high that this kind of investment (in China or anywhere else abroad) has replaced the multinationals’ factories and workers in the United States. By contrast, multinational investment in China (or anywhere else abroad) that’s supplying the China market almost never harms the U.S. domestic economy and in fact can help it, certainly in early stages, by providing foreign customers that add to the domestic customers of U.S.-based manufacturers.

There’s no doubt that the phenomenal growth of China’s own consumer class in recent decades has, as the China Commission report observes, generated more and more American business decisions to supply those customers from China. In other words, the days when critical masses of Chinese couldn’t possibly afford to buy the goods they made in U.S.- and other foreign-owned factories are long gone.

But the data presented by the USCC does nothing to support this claim, and the key to understanding why is the central role played by computer, electronics, and other information technology-related manufacturing in the U.S. corporate presence in China. For when the Commission (and others) report that large shares of the output of these factories are now sold to Chinese customers, they overlook the fact that many of these other customers are their fellow entities comprising links of China-centric corporate supply chains. These sales, however, don’t mean that the final customers for these products are located in China.

In other words, when a facility in China that, for example, performs final assembly activities on semiconductors sells those chips to another factory in China that sticks them into computers or cell phones or HDTV sets, the sale is regarded as one made to a Chinese customer. But that customer in turn surely sells much of its own production overseas. As the USCC documents, China’s consumer market for these goods has grown tremendously, too. But China’s continually surging share of total global production of these electronics products (also documented in the Commission report) indicates that lots of this output continues to be sold overseas.

Also overlooked by the USCC – two other disturbing apects of the multinationals’ activities in China.

First, it fails to mention that all the computer and electronics-related investment in China – which presumably includes a great deal of software-related investment – has contributed to China’s economic and military ambitions not only by transferring knowhow to Chinese partners, but by teaching huge numbers of Chinese science and technology workers how to generate their technology advances. The companies’ own (often glowing) descriptions of these training activities – which have often taken the form of dedicated training programs and academies – were revealed in this 2013 article of mine.

Second, the Commission’s report doesn’t seem to include U.S. multinationals’ growing investments not simply in high tech facilities in China that they partly or wholly own, but in Chinese-owned entities. As I’ve reported here on RealityChek, these capital flows are helping China develop and produce high tech goods with numerous critical defense-related applications, and the scale has grown so large that some elements of the U.S. national security community had been taking notice as early as 2015. And President Trump seems to be just as oblivious to these investments as globalist former President Barack Obama was.

These criticisms aside, though, the USCC has performed a major public service with this survey of the multinationals’ China activities. It should be must reading in particular for anyone who still believes that these companies – whose China operations have so greatly enriched and therefore strengthened the People’s Republic at America’s expense – deserve much influence over the U.S. China policy debate going forward.

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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