(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How to Really Make Trade Fair

Tags

automotive, BBB, Biden administration, bubbles, Build Back Better, Canada, consumption, Donald Trump, electric vehicles, EVs, fossil fuels, manufacturing, Mexico, NAFTA, North America, production, tax breaks, Trade, U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, {What's Left of) Our Economy

There’s no doubt that the next few weeks will see a spate of (low-profile) news articles on how unhappy Canada and Mexico are about proposed new U.S. tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles (EVs) and how these measures could trigger a major new international trade dispute.

There’s also no doubt that any such disputes could be quickly resolved, and legitimate U.S. interests safeguarded, if only Washington would finally start basing U.S. trade policy on economic fundamentals and facts on the ground rather than on the abstract and downright childishly rigid notions of fairness that excessively influenced the approach taken by Donald Trump’s presidency.

The Canadian and Mexican complaints concern a provision in the Biden administration’s Build Back Better (BBB) bill that’s been passed by the House of Representatives but is stuck so far in the Senate. In order to encourage more EV sales, and help speed a transition away from fossil fuel use for climate change reasons, the latest version of BBB would award a refundable tax break of up to $12,500 for most purchases of these vehicles.

The idea is controversial because the administration and other BBB supporters see these rebates as a great opportunity to promote EV production and jobs in the United State by reserving his subsidy for vehicles Made in America. (As you’ll see here, the actual proposed rules get more complicated still – and could change some more.) And according to Canada and Mexico, this arrangement also violates the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA) governing North American trade that replaced the old NAFTA during the Trump years in July, 2020.

Because USMCA largely reflects those prevailing concepts of global economic equity, Canada and Mexico probably have a strong case. But that’s only because this framework continues classifying all countries signing a trade agreement as economic equals. Even worse, there’s no better illustration of this position’s absurdity is the economy of North America.

After all, the United States has always accounted for vast majority of the continent’s total economic output and therefore market for traded goods. According for the latest (2020) World Bank figures, the the United States turned out 87.51 percent of North America’s gross product adjusted for inflation. And when it comes to new car and light truck sales, the U.S. share was 84.24 percent in 2019 (the last full pre-pandemic year, measured by units, and as calculated from here, here, and here).

But in 2019, the United States produced only 68.88 percent of all light vehicles made in North America (also measured by units and calculated from here, here, and here.) Moreover, more than 70 percent of all vehicles manufactured in Mexico were exported to the United States according to the latest U.S. government figures. And for Canada, the most recent data pegs this share at just under 54 percent (based on and calculated from here and here).

What this means is that, without the American market, there probably wouldn’t even be any Canadian and Mexican auto industries at all. They simply wouldn’t have enough customers to reach and maintain the production scale needed to make any economic sense.

So real fairness, stemming from the nature of the North American economy and the North American motor vehicle industry, leads to an obvious solution: Give vehicles from Canada and Mexico shares of the EV tax credits that match their shares of the continent’s light vehicle sales – just under 16 percent.

Therefore, using, say, 2019 as a baseline, from now on, the first just-under-16 percent of their combined light vehicle exports to the United States would be eligible for the credits for each successive year, and the rest would need to be offered at each manufacturer’s full price (a pretty plastic notion in the auto industry, I know, but a decision that would need to be left to whatever the manufacturers choose).

Nothing in this decision would force Canada or Mexico to subject themselves to these requirements; they would remain, as they always have been, completely free to try to sell as many EVs as they could to other markets (including each other’s).

What would change dramatically, though, is a situation that’s needlessly harmed the productive heart of the U.S. economy for far too long, resulting from trade agreements that lock America into an outsized consuming and importing role, but an undersized production and exporting role. In other words, what would change dramatically is a strategy bearing heavy responsibility for addicting the nation to bubble-ized growth. And forgive me for not being impressed by whatever legalistic arguments Mexico, Canada, any other country, or the global economics and trade policy establishments, are sure to raise in objection.

Advertisement

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Good – & Promising – News on Manufacturing Reshoring

Tags

Canada, China, Commerce Department, East Asia, Forbes.com, GDP-by-industry, Kearney, Kenneth Rapoza, manufacturing, manufacturing production, manufacturing trade deficit, Mexico, North America, Trade, Trade Deficits, {What's Left of) Our Economy

When two separate sources of information agree on a conclusion, the conclusion obviously becomes a lot more important than if it’s got only a single supporter. That’s why I’m excited to report that a major economic consulting firm has just released data showing that American domestic manufacturing has been coping just fine with all the challenges it faces from Trump tariffs aimed at achieving the crucial goal of decoupling U.S. industry and the the broader economy from China.

I’m excited because these results track with my own analysis of U.S. trade and manufacturing output data – which I’ve been able to update because of a new Commerce Department release measuring manufacturing production through the end of last year. And you should be excited, too – because the more self-reliant U.S.-based industry becomes, the better able it will be to add to the nation’s growth without boosting its indebtedness. In addition, the more secure the country will be both in terms of traditional national security and America’s ability to provide all the military equipment it needs, and in terms of health security and its ability to provide all the drugs and medical equipment it needs to fight CCP Virus-like pandemics.

The consulting firm data comes from Kearney, and I need to tip my hat to Forbes.com contributor Kenneth Rapoza for initially spotlighting it. According to the company, its seventh annual Reshoring Index reveals that last year, imports from low-cost Asian countries like China (well, none are really “like China,” but you get it) as a percentage of U.S. industry’s output hit its lowest annual level since 2014. The decrease was the first since 2011, and the yearly drop was by far the biggest in percentage terms since 2008.

What’s especially interesting is that the Kearney figures show that manufacturing imports from Asia made inroads even during much of the Great Recession. Last year, their prominence dwindled notably even though the American economy as a whole was growing solidly. And although domestic manufacturing output slowed annually last year – due partly to the inevitable short-term disruptions and uncertainties created by major policy shifts, and partly due to the safety problems of aerospace giant Boeing – the Kearney report noted, it “held its ground.”

Kearney reported even better news on the “trade shifting” front, and its findings also track with mine. One major criticism of the Trump China tariffs in particular entails the claim that they won’t aid American domestic manufacturing because they’ll simply result in the U.S. customers of tariff-ed Chinese products buying the same goods from elsewhere – especially from Asian sources.

The Kearney study refutes that claim, reporting that not only did the role of Asian imports decrease in 2019, but that due to the tariffs, this decrease was led by a China fall-off, that production reshoring rose “substantially,”and that a major import shifting beneficiary was Mexico – which is good news for Americans since it means that the globalization of industry is now doing more to help a next-door neighbor whose problems do indeed tend to spill across the border. (I’ve also found important trade shifting away from East Asia as a whole and toward North America – meaning both Canada and Mexico.) 

As for my own research, the release Monday of the Commerce Department’s latest Gross Domestic Product by Industry report, combined with the monthly trade statistics, these data also shed light on the relationship between U.S.-based manufacturing’s growth, and the economy’s purchases of manufactured goods from abroad.

The big takeaway, as shown by the table below: The relationship has continued its pattern of weakening – suggesting less import dependence – during the Trump years, although production growth did indeed slow because of that aforementioned tariff-related disruption and the Boeing mess.

The figure in the left-hand column represents U.S.-based manufacturing’s growth during the year in question (according to a gauge called “value added), the middle column represents the growth that year of the manufacturing trade deficit, and the right-hand column shows the ratio between the two growth rates (with the trade gap’s growth coming first). The higher the ratio, more closely linked manufacturing output growth is to the expansion of the manufacturing trade deficit. All figures are in pre-inflation dollars.

2011:             +3.93 percent              +8.21 percent                2.09:1

2012:             +3.19 percent              +6.27 percent               1.97:1

2013:             +3.36 percent              +0.77 percent               0.23:1

2014:             +2.93 percent            +12.39 percent               4.23:1

2015:             +3.72 percent            +13.22 percent               3.55:1

2016:              -1.19 percent              +3.07 percent                 n/a

2017:             +3.99 percent              +7.22 percent              1.81:1

2018              +6.23 percent            +10.68 percent              1.71:1

2019              +1.67 percent              +1.09 percent              0.65:1

Domestic manufacturers obviously haven’t completed their adjustments to the new Trump era trade environment, and the CCP Virus crisis clearly won’t make this task any easier. But Kearney expects that the pandemic will wind up moving more U.S.-owned or -related manufacturing out of China, and so do I. And although the Kearney authors don’t say so explicitly, it’s easy to read their report and conclude that the crisis and the resulting national health security needs will help ensure that the domestic U.S. economy will keep getting a healthy share.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Strong Internals for America’s 2019 Trade Performance

Tags

Advanced Technology Products, aircraft, Boeing, China, manufacturing, merchandise trade deficit, North America, Pacific Rim, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, Trump, U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Because last week’s official U.S. trade figures came out right after President Trump’s acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial and the confusing Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses, I didn’t get the chance to issue more than a limited analysis focusing on some very encouraging highlights for backers of administration trade policy. But the newsworthy results from the release – which covered December and therefore full-year 2019 – by no means stopped there.

For example, the biggest annual drop on record in the still-massive U.S. goods trade deficit with China was accompanied by the shrinking of the value of total merchandise trade between the two economies by more than 18 percent – to its lowest level ($558.87 billion) since 2012 ($536.14 billion). Moreover, since the U.S. economy has grown significantly over the last seven years, this sign of decoupling looks all the more impressive.

Also crucial – although that merchandise trade deficit remains way too big, the portion most heavily influenced by trade policy barely grew (and grew much slower than the overall economy). And even better, the overall merchandise trade deficit became more concentrated within North America. That’s could be a big positive for two reasons. 

First, even before the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)came into force, with its modest spurs to regional production and sourcing, American imports from its two neighbors contained relatively high levels of U.S. content. That means that domestic industries and their employees had a relatively big share of their production – along with the associated revenues, jobs, and wages. (At the same time, there’s now considerable disagreement over how these Canada and Mexico content levels compare with goods imported from elsewhere.  See, e.g., here and here.)

Less controversy surrounds the second argument for North American-izing U.S. trade:  America’s fortunes are much more directly affected by the well-being of its immediate neighbors than by conditions elsewhere.

And the new trade report shows that North American-ization advanced rapidly last year. Specifically, between 2018 and 2019, China’s share of this trade gap sank from 47.96 percent to 41.84 percent and that of Pacific Rim countries (an official U.S. government grouping that excludes the Western Hemisphere) from 58.26 percent to 53.37 percent. But North America’s share jumped from 11.40 percent t 15.10 percent.

Moreover, the Chinese share was the lowest since 2011 (40.70 percent), the Pacific Rim’s since 2012 (52.44 percent) and North America’s the highest of the current economic recovery. So anyone telling you that, under President Trump, the merchandise trade deficit has simply changed composition, with no net benefit for America, needs a clue.

The news was also unquestionably good on the manufacturing trade deficit front. As with the China goods deficit, it remains way too humongous. But between 2018 and 2019, it grew at the slowest annual rate (1.09 percent) since 2016. That year – the final year of the Obama administration – this trade shortfall actually shrank by 1.19 percent

Full-year 2019 data for domestic manufacturing output aren’t available yet, so it’s not possible to make the crucial comparison between this trade deficit progress and industry’s overall growth. (It’s up on a third-quarter-to-third-quarter basis, though.) But when evaluating how the manufacturing trade results reflect on President Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies, it’s essential to take into account one major development that has had nothing to do with these policies – the safety woes of aircraft giant and usual trade surplus standout Boeing.

During 2019, that small rise in the manufacturing trade deficit amounted to $11.15 billion. There’s no doubt, however, that Boeing’s problems have cut deeply into its trade performance. In fact, last year, the civilian aircraft trade surplus fell from $40.25 billion to $29.77 billion – a difference of $10.48 billion. As a result, had this trade balance simply remained the same, the overall manufacturing trade deficit would have practically leveled off.

Further, Boeing’s problems also worsened the nation’s trade deficit in advanced technology products – which continued worsening in 2019. This high tech trade gap hit $132.37 billion – its third straight all-time high, and a 3.29 percent increase from the 2018 total ($4.22 billion). But without the $10.48 billion increase in the trade deficit for civilian aircraft (which are classified as an advanced technology product), the high tech trade gap would actually have narrowed slightly, and for the first time since 2016.

A classic 1960s ad sought to sell hairspray by claiming, “The closer he gets…the better you look!” From today’s standpoint, that looks kind of chauvinistic. But with a few word changes, it’s a pretty good description of the year in trade, 2019 for the United States, and for President Trump.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The New U.S. Trade Figures Validate Trump’s (Previous?) Hard Line

Tags

aircraft, Boeing, China, civilian aircraft, goods exports, goods imports, goods trade, manufacturing, merchandise exports, merchandise imports, merchandise trade, Mexico, North America, services trade, soybeans, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The new U.S. monthly trade data, which bring the story up through November, are teaching President Trump and the rest of the country a crucial lesson about his total trade strategy and his approach to China trade, along with their impact on the economy as a whole. Specifically, the hard line he was pursuing with the People’s Republic before the announcement of the “Phase One” trade agreement was working like a charm.

The new numbers also make clear that many of U.S. domestic manufacturing’s troubles this year, including its mediocre trade performance, have had nothing to do with the Trump tariffs whatever – whether on Chinese products or foreign aluminum and steel. Instead, they owe to the (apparently mounting) safety woes of aircraft giant Boeing.        

The initial Phase One announcement (on October 11) revealed that the United States would hold off on an increase of tariffs from 25 percent to 30 percent on $250 billion worth of goods imports from China (largely advanced manufactures inputs) that was scheduled to go into effect on October 15. On December 13, Mr. Trump added that new levies scheduled to go into effect on December 15 on an additional $160 billion worth of merchandise imports would be canceled as well.

In return, according to the President, Beijing has agreed to “many structural changes and massive purchases of Agricultural Product, Energy, and Manufactured Goods, plus much more.” Moreover, 7.5 percent tariffs would remain on most of the rest of China’s imports along with the two governments agreeing to follow-on negotiations to address further China’s wide range of predatory trade and broader economic practices.

The new trade figures show that U.S. merchandise exports to China have indeed risen since October – by 13.69 percent month-to-month. Also up sequentially (by 21.89 percent) are total worldwide U.S. exports of soybeans – a crop whose trade performance was damaged severely by Chinese retaliatory tariffs since the latest phase of the bilateral trade war broke out.

But whether the Phase One deal and the related prospects for an enduring U.S.-China trade truce deserve much, if any, credit is open to serious doubt. For example, American goods exports to China rose sequentially four times in 2018 through September – before even the initial Phase One announcement. And two of these increases (in March and May) were bigger in percentage terms than the November improvement.

Moreover, although the November monthly shrinkage of the China’s huge bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States was substantial (15.65 percent), the surplus fell at faster rates in February and March.

Yet the cumulative success of Mr. Trump’s tariff-centric policies are clear from the new year-to-date results. On a January-through-November basis, U.S merchandise exports to China are indeed off 11.94 percent. But the much larger amount of American goods imports from China have fallen by 15.22 percent. As a result, the year-to-date merchandise trade deficit is down 16.17 percent.

Further, this progress has been made as the growth of the American global goods deficit has actually been reversed – indicating that attacking the prime source of the U.S. worldwide goods deficit is indeed helping address the global shortfall effectively.

On a year-to-date basis, the global goods deficit is down fractionally. If the trend continues for a month more, the merchandise trade gap will have narrowed on an annual basis for the first time since 2013 – a year during which the overall economy grew at a considerably slower pace (1.8 percent after inflation) than it’s been growing this year (well in excess of two percent so far in real terms).

Much of this improvement is due to America’s emergence as an oil trade surplus country (which has almost nothing to do with trade deals or other elements of trade policy, since oil trade is rarely directly affected by trade policy decisions). Yet the massive U.S. global deficits in goods other than oil have been shrinking steadily since August – from $72.75 billion that month to $63.82 billion in November, the lowest monthly total since June, 2018).

Just as important, the makeup of the remaining American merchandise deficit is becoming concentrated in North America – which benefits the United States significantly, since Mexico’s economic problems in particular often become America’s problems. And year-to-date, the total U.S. goods deficit with North America (Canada and Mexico), widened by 27.05 percent, led by a 27.64 percent rise in the Mexico gap.

Nonetheless, the merchandise deficit with Pacific Rim countries excluding China has grown by 22.47 percent year-to-date, so much more regionalization progress can clearly be made.

In other important developments revealed by today’s November trade report, the monthly U.S. combined goods and services deficit shrank sequentially by 8.31 percent to $43.09 billion from a downwardly adjusted $46.94 billion. The November figure was the lowest monthly total since October, 2016 ($42.00 billion).

November’s $63.90 billion global goods deficit (which includes oil) also represented its lowest level since October, 2016 ($62.02 billion).

Yet U.S. services trade continued to experience a weak year, as the surplus decreased sequentially in November (by 0.19 percent) and is running 4.72 below 2018’s total so far.

Total U.S. exports advanced by 0.66 percent on month in November, but are so far down fractionally on a year-to-date basis. (During the previous January-through-November period, they’d risen by 6.98 percent.)

Total U.S. imports dropped by 0.98 percent sequentially in November, and so far are down 0.14 percent year-to-date. (During the previous January-through-November period, they’d increased by 8.20 percent.)

Encouraging news came on the manufacturing trade front, too, as this sector’s enormous, longstanding deficit fell on month by 12.70 percent, to $80.93 billion. That was the lowest monthly level since March’s $76.96 billion and the biggest monthly percentage drop since February’s 20.00 percent.

U.S. manufactures exports declined by 3.81 percent on month in November, but the much greater amount of imports sank by 8.16 percent.

Year-to-date through November, the manufacturing trade deficit is up 1.69 percent – from $935.74 billion to $951.55 billion. In other words, another $1 trillion annual trade deficit is almost certainly in store for U.S. domestic manufacturing.

At the same time, this rate of increase is much slower than that from the same period in the year before: 10.98 percent.

In addition, this manufacturing progress has been recorded despite a major deterioration in U.S. civilian aircraft trade fueled undoubtedly and largely by the safety problems experienced by Boeing. 

The company – America’s only producer of wide-body civilian jetliners – has long been a major export and trade surplus champion.  But U.S. exports of civilian aircraft dropped by 5.77 percent on month in November, and have nosedived by fully 21.77 percent year-to-date.  Civilian craft imports declined at an even faster rate sequentially in November – fully 39.59 percent.  But the numbers are much smaller, and year-to-date through November, they’ve soared by 19.39 percent.

As a result, the U.S. civilian aircraft trade surplus last year through November stood at only $27.22 billion.  That’s a 33.02 percent plunge from 2018’s comparable total of  $40.64 billion.  And it means that, all else equal, if this sector’s 2019 trade performance simply equalled that of the year before, the overall manufacturing trade deficit would have barely grown at all.   

 

 

Making News: Last Night’s National Radio China Interview Podcast Now On-Line & a Major Seminar on North America’s Future

Tags

caravans AMLO, Gordon G. Chang, Henry George School of Social Science, Huawei, Immigration, Jorge Castaneda, Lopez Obrador, Making News, NAFTA, North America, North American Free Trade Agreement, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump

I’m pleased to report that the podcast is now on-line of my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show. Click here for a lively update on the rapidly evolving  U.S.-China trade conflict and the China tech executive’s arrest provided by John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and me.

Also, late last month, I had the privilege of moderating a seminar held at New York City’s Henry George School of Social Science (where I serve as a Trustee) featuring Jorge Castaneda, a former Mexican foreign minister who also ranks as a leading authority on U.S.-Mexico relations, Mexico’s politics and economy, and Western Hemisphere affairs more generally.

As the title of the seminar noted, North America’s economy is at a crossroads – due to the recent revamp of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), the inauguration of a new Mexican President, and the presence of an avowed disrupter in the White House. Let’s not forget, moreover, a new, caravans-fueled stage of the ongoing immigration crisis!

The video is now on-line, and because no one is more qualified than Jorge to explain how all these events do – and don’t – fit together, viewers will be rewarded with a treasure trove of information and incisive analysis.  Here’s the link.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Laughable NAFTA Defenses from the New York Fed

Tags

Canada, competitiveness, Federal Reserve, intermediate goods, intra-industry trade, Mexico, NAFTA, New York Fed, North America, North American Free Trade Agreement, rules of origin, supply chains, tariffs, The Race to the Bottom, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although the Federal Reserve Bank of New York says that posts on its Liberty Street Economics blog “do not necessarily reflect the position” of either this branch of the federal reserve system or the system itself, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the bank has gone to war against President Trump’s announced plans to renegotiate NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement). Why else would it have run items critical of these plans on consecutive days last week?

Even more important, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that these posts aren’t vetted seriously for basic knowledge of America’s international trade situation, or even common sense. Key examples from each of these posts should suffice to establish the New York Fed’s combination of bias and ineptitude here.

The first post, by a New York Fed official and an economist from the offshoring interests-funded Institute for International Economics, purported to show that “An underappreciated benefit of … (NAFTA) is the protection it offers U.S. exporters from extreme tariff uncertainty in Mexico….Without NAFTA, there is a risk that tariffs on U.S. exports to Mexico could reach their bound rates, which average 35 percent. In contrast, U.S. bound rates average only 4 percent. At the very least, U.S. exporters would be subject to a higher level of policy uncertainty without the trade agreement.”

But it quickly becomes clear that even the authors are skeptical about this outcome. Their main stated reason hints at one main reason: “”Given the large and well-documented benefits from low trade barriers, particularly those stemming from access to a wider variety of imported intermediate inputs and lower prices of intermediate inputs, it would not be in Mexico’s interest to raise all of its MFN tariffs to their bound rates.”

This argument is only a hint, however, because it jaw-droppingly softpedals some of the main characteristics of U.S.-Mexico trade – specifically, the hugely outsized role played in this commerce by intra-industry trade. As I first described at length in The Race to the Bottom, a large share of U.S.-Mexico trade has little to do with the exchange of finished goods that dominates the textbook models. Instead, it consists of parts and components and other inputs of finished goods that travel through international production chains until they’re turned into final products.

And because there’s so little consumer purchasing power in Mexico, and so much in the United States, the lion’s share of this bilateral intra-industry trade in turn consists of intermediates being sent from U.S. factories to Mexican facilities, where they’re assembled into final products for export back to America.

Sure, in principle, a U.S. scrapping of NAFTA (which of course is not the Trump administration’s stated intention) could enable Mexico to substitute non-U.S. parts and components etc for the American-made intermediates that current make up so many of its exports. But without NAFTA, Mexico would also lose much and probably most of its current, unconditional access to the U.S. market. And since that market currently buys nearly 80 percent of Mexico’s exports, and since Mexico’s economy relies so heavily on those exports, it should quickly becomes obvious how self-defeating such a Mexican effort at hardball playing would be.

How bizarre that neither the article’s authors, nor anyone else involved in producing Liberty Street Economics, recognized these longstanding realities. Even weirder: The importance of this intra-industry trade in U.S.-Mexico trade was the major theme of another post from the same authors (plus a third) on this same blog that appeared the very next day.

Yet the NAFTA-related follies of the authors and of Liberty Street Economics hardly end there. In that second post, readers are warned that stricter rules of origin (ROO) for NAFTA could “disrupt supply chains” and in particular backfire on U.S.-based businesses by increasing the costs of their imported inputs and undermining the competitiveness of their exports outside North America.

To which someone who actually knows something current U.S. NAFTA renegotiating plans can only reply, “Seriously?”

For what the authors and the rest of the Liberty Street crowd seem to miss is that the only ROO revamping that would make any sense from a U.S. standpoint is also precisely the kind of revamping that the Trump administration seems to be considering: not only tightening the ROO (to confine duty-free treatment for goods traded inside the NAFTA zone to goods with higher levels of content produced inside the zone), but increasing the tariff penalties imposed on goods with relatively low levels of non-North American content.

In other words, the North American supply chains created by NAFTA wouldn’t be weakened. They’d be strengthened and greatly expanded.

Now the authors could still be right in arguing that such measures would raise the prices of goods made inside North America and thereby undermine their competitiveness outside North America. But they completely neglect two counter-arguments.

First, because the (U.S.-dominated) North American market is already so vast, and because intermediate goods industries in the three NAFTA countries are already so enormous, external tariffs that encourage North American businesses to use even more North American content could well bring gains inside the NAFTA zone that exceed whatever non-NAFTA losses are incurred.

Second, NAFTA as it currently exists was touted as a major boost to U.S. and North American global competitiveness, but there’s no evidence that this goal was achieved. Quite the contrary, at least according to World Trade Organization data.

They show that in 1993, the year before NAFTA went into effect, North America’s share of global goods exports was 17.9 percent. By 2015, it had shrunk to 14.4 percent. The U.S. share during this period fell from 12.6 percent to 9.4 percent, and the Canadian share decreased even faster – from 3.9 percent to 2.6 percent (no doubt, however, largely due to falling prices for the oil it exports so abundantly).

Mexico’s share of global exports did increase – from 1.4 percent to 2.4 percent. But surely that improvement stemmed mainly from selling to the United States, not to any non-North American customers.

The North American share of world merchandise imports did decrease during this period as well. But the decline was much smaller, and one quick look at the U.S. trend makes clear that the lion’s share of this improvement has resulted from the recent, dramatic turnaround in American energy trade patterns – which have nothing to do with NAFTA or any other supply chains.

The Federal Reserve system, and especially its crucially important New York branch, have long been renowned for employing premier economists and sponsoring first-rate economic analysis. But these Liberty Street Economics posts indicate that, at least when it comes to NAFTA, the New York Fed is better described as the Gang that Can’t Shoot Straight.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: RIP, Manufacturing Renaissance – & Reshoring – Claims

Tags

Asia, China, competitiveness, Deloitte, investment, local content, Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, manufacturing, manufacturing renaissance, MAPI, Mexico, multinational corporations, North America, Obama, offshoring, reshoring, TPP, Trade, Trans-Pacific Parternship, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Because manufacturers (and others) don’t always do what they say, surveys of their intentions on hiring and investment and the like should always be taken with a big boulder of salt – the more so since the questions are often asked and the answers given in a political and policy context. So when one of these surveys clashes with manufacturing reshoring and renaissance claims that America’s most powerful manufacturers – the offshoring multinationals – have been energetically pushing, they deserve special attention. That’s why it’s worth looking closely at a new sounding on where new factories are likely to be built from a major consulting firm and a leading manufacturers association.

As the nation has heard endlessly from the biggest names in American industry and their witting and unwitting political dupes, U.S. domestic manufacturing is either enjoying an historic comeback, or is on the verge of one. These boasts and predictions have become a little less common lately, as manufacturing data keeps disappointing, but they haven’t been recanted or simply dropped because they serve two powerful purposes.

First, at a time of continued U.S. economic weakness, contentions that American-owned manufacturing firms are boosting their U.S. production and employment counter fears and accusations that they have abandoned their home country wholesale. Second, a crucial feature of these renaissance claims – that China’s competitiveness has faltered so dramatically that American industry is actually abandoning the PRC and returning stateside – helps the multinationals defend the offshoring-friendly trade deals they worked so hard to pass by indicating that they did little, if any, long-term harm to the U.S. economy despite critics’ accusations.

It’s hard, however, to read the Footprint 2020 study just released by Deloitte and the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI), and take any of the above seriously for one minute longer.

Take the reshoring narrative so central to the renaissance story. According to the Deloitte-MAPI report, “reshoring is a real phenomenon.” But get a load of this kicker: “[A] common misconception is it represents a return of previously offshored operations to US soil. In practicality, reshoring may include returning operations to Mexico. This offers greater access to the US market, but allows companies to maintain advantageous operating cost structures. Sixty-six percent of survey respondents offshored their operations in the past 20 years, and a third are now considering bringing them back to North America. These moves focus on primary production and assembly operations currently located in China, India, and/or Brazil. Mexico is the first choice destination to re-shore operations, followed by the US.”

To be fair, there is a respectable argument made that even reshoring (and other) investment in Mexico helps domestic U.S. industry, too. The supposed reason: Manufactured goods made in Mexican factories, especially if they’re owned or related to American firms, use much more in the way of Made in the USA parts and components than similar products made in Asia and elsewhere.

But this argument overlooks the reality that the U.S. content of America’s imports from Mexico has been falling, and that this trend will accelerate if Congress approves the Pacific Rim trade deal just concluded by the Obama administration. That Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will make it easier for countries like Japan to send more goods, like automobiles from Mexican assembly plants into the United States that contain more parts and components from outside Mexico and “North America.”

The idea that investing in Chinese manufacturing doesn’t make much sense nowadays also takes a body blow from Footprint 2020. The study found that 98 percent of the companies surveyed plan to expand operations in countries where they’re already in business, either through adding on to existing facilities, or by opening new factories or labs or warehousing and distribution centers. The country that will get the biggest share of this new capital? China. (The United States is second.) Moreover, between the 2002-2007 period (before the financial crisis struck) and the 2010-2015 period (when the American manufacturing renaissance was supposed to have taken off), “North America’s” appeal to American-owned companies increased only slightly, while “Asia’s” (meaning largely China) nearly doubled.

Of course, for literally years, manufacturing renaissance claims have been steadily punctured by the most authoritative data available on production, trade balances, productivity, and wages. With hitherto cheerleading multinational manufacturers themselves now throwing cold water on this idea, too, it’s legitimate to wonder whether domestic industry is closer to suspended animation than to rebirth.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: “North American Economy”? Petraeus Tries to Fake Us

Tags

Canada, competitiveness, David Petraeus, economic integration, energy, exports, foreign policy, manufacturing, Mexico, NAFTA, North America, North American Free Trade Agreement, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

When I saw the headline on a new article co-authored by David Petraeus, former U.S. military commander in Iraq, my first reaction was “Finally! Someone from the American national security establishment who gets it on international trade!” When I finished, I realized that Petraeus had simply joined the rapidly swelling ranks of bigwigs who believe that they can become instant experts on the subject.

His ForeignPolicy.com piece, “North America: the Next Great Emerging Market?” looked like it would recognize that the United States lately has been outperforming the rest of the world economically – and would therefore challenge the flood of blather that’s accompanied Congress’ just-concluded fast track trade debate about America’s desperate need for foreign markets. But the article makes embarrassingly clear that Petraeus and his colleague don’t come close to understanding even this hemisphere’s economic and trade dynamics, much less the rest of the world’s.

According to Petraeus and management consultant Paras D. Bhayani, the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) should convince skeptical Americans how well the nation (and Canada and Mexico) will be able to compete in the new world economy being created by new trade agreements like President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The “unrivaled market integration” created by NAFTA, they argue, has created a “record of shared prosperity” that “should be a compelling reminder of the benefits of improved economic ties.”

With all due respect for Petraeus’ service to his country, this is so ignorant it may not even qualify as fakeonomics.

Let’s start the lesson with the most important reality about the highly integrated North American economy that has so impressed the authors. When NAFTA went into effect, in 1994, the United States represented 86 percent of all the continent’s output adjusted for inflation. Through 2013, the last year that apples-to-apples World Bank data is available, this predominance was virtually changed, with the United States accounting for 85.93 percent of North American real gross product. And the 2014 growth estimates so far on record for the three NAFTA countries make clear that the so-called North American economy remains little more than the U.S. economy, and that the foreseeable future will feature more of the same.

The stable relationship between the gross domestic products (GDPs) of the three North American economies is also sending another message that trade enthusiasts keep ignoring: Throughout NAFTA’s lifespan, Canada and Mexico have not grown appreciably faster than the United States. So the notion that selling to customers there deserves some outsized degree of importance in American eyes is completely unjustified from a macro-economic standpoint.

When the trade flow details are examined, the idea that its closest neighbors are important growth engines for the U.S. economy appears even sillier. Under NAFTA, the $25.11 billion goods trade deficit America ran with Canada in 1994 has nearly quadrupled as of 2014, and a small $531 million surplus with Mexico has turned into a shortfall just shy of $100 billion. And not even stripping out oil changes the overall NAFTA trade situation significantly.

Properly counted (i.e., omitting goods made abroad but shipped through the United States), the NAFTA years have indeed seen an improvement in the American ing trade balance with Canada in manufacturing – the sector that dominates U.S. global and regional trade. From 1994 to 2014, a $402 million surplus soared to $2.71 billion. But this development has been absolutely swamped by the transformation of an $8.44 billion American manufacturing trade surplus with Mexico into a $75.53 billion deficit.

NAFTA could still rightly be viewed as a success despite America’s deteriorating regional trade performance had these developments somehow significantly brightened the nation’s economic fortunes with the rest of the world economy. And indeed, some of NAFTA’s more sophisticated champions promised that the agreement’s most important benefits would be structural, and concentrated in manufacturing. Check out my book The Race to the Bottom for numerous predictions that the agreement would boost U.S. industrial competitiveness by (a) freeing American-based manufacturers and their workers to concentrate on high-value and more lucrative activity while (b) encouraging less advanced, mainly labor-intensive production of parts and components to be handled by less developed Mexico.

For these predictions to have panned out, America’s global manufacturing trade balance would need to have shown improvement under NAFTA, or at least some evidence would have needed to emerge of U.S.-based producers’ greater ability to sell to the rest of the world through either Mexico or Canada. Yet the U.S. global manufacturing trade deficit keeps hitting annual new records despite subpar national economic growth since the Great Recession ended. Even worse, although its only possible to calculate figures through 2011, American manufacturers have steadily lost share of their home market to foreign rivals even in high-value sectors during the NAFTA years. Meanwhile, both Mexico and Canada have become only slightly less dependent on selling to the U.S. market than they were in 1994. In fact, each still sends more than 70 percent of its goods exports annually across their main land borders.

Further debunking NAFTA optimists’ predictions, Canadian and Mexican exports to the United States are not overshadowed by overall economic structures that qualify them as promising final markets for U.S.-origin goods and services. Both economies are export heavy – and about three times more than America’s. Since NAFTA’s implementation, Canada’s export dependence has declined, with overseas sales’ shares of its GDP falling from 36.10 percent to 30.20 percent. But the comparable Mexico figure is up from 25.20 percent to 31.70 percent – and let’s not forget that it was Mexico’s addition to an already existing U.S.-Canada free trade agreement that made NAFTA NAFTA. (The American economy has become more export-heavy, too, but the figure has risen only from 10.60 percent to 13.50 percent over the two NAFTA decades.)

Even with U.S. preponderance, greater integration of North America’s economies could have benefited the United States on net, along with Mexico in particular, had NAFTA been structured more intelligently, and had it not been followed by a long string of even bigger trade policy mistakes – chiefly, the reckless expansion of America’s trade with China. Even greater hemispheric energy integration would be great, too – and it’s one area where both Canada and Mexico actually do bring a great deal to the table.

As for North American integration more broadly, however, since Petraeus is new to the subjects of trade and globalization, he can arguably be forgiven for viewing NAFTA through rose-colored lenses. But his study also strongly indicates that until he gets up to speed on his international economics, he should stick to his national security knitting.