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.

Im-Politic: On Biden’s New Plan for Medical & Other Supply Chain Security

Tags

alliances, Biden, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Defense Department, Defense Production Act, DPA, election 2020, health security, healthcare goods, Im-Politic, manufacturing, offshoring, Pentagon, pharmaceuticals, PPE, supply chains, tariffs, taxes, Trade, Wuhan virus

Joe Biden’s plan for rebuilding U.S. supply chains to ensure American access to critical products like healthcare goods came out yesterday, and any fair reading would have to conclude that these proposals are about as serious as the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee’s proposals in related areas – like China policy. That is to say, they’re not terribly serious at present.

As with China policy, the first concern entails credibility. In 2011, when Biden was Barack Obama’s Vice President, the Commerce Department issued a report detailing all sorts of dangerous vulnerabilities in U.S. supplies of all manner of vital healthcare goods. The “Obama-Biden administration” did absolutely nothing in response – unless you count avidly pursuing offshoring-friendly trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that were bound to worsen these vulnerabilities. You could also throw in a record of continually coddling the trade and broader economic predation practiced by China, which surely fostered similar results.

As a result, it’s legit to ask whether any of these proposals will survive Day One of a Biden presidency.

In this vein, it’s more than a little disturbing that Biden proposes to use the Defense Department’s policies to minimize supply chain vulnerabilities as his model for addressing such problems for a wide variety of products –not just healthcare-related goods. These include “energy and grid resilience technologies, semiconductors, key electronics and related technologies, telecommunications infrastructure, and key raw materials.”

Unfortunately, the principal lessons taught by the Defense Department’s record on supply chains are how to duck the problem or define it out of existence, and the administration in which Biden served was no exception. Some of the biggest specific problems (as made clear in this Obama administration report):

>The Pentagon’s overall assessments prioritized financial metrics, not specific domestic production capabilities, as measures of the defense manufacturing base’s health.

>Its treatment of globalization’s challenges placed major emphasis on taking “advantage of emerging capabilities, regardless of where they originate,” not maximizing domestic production capabilities.

>Although specific vulnerabilities – and the related need to maintain or rebuild adequate domestic capabilities – were acknowledged, this vulnerabilities were consistently portrayed as isolated holes that could somehow be plugged without taking into account the dependence of these narrowly defined products on their own supply chains. Indeed, Biden’s new plan seems to reveal a similar flaw when it describes itself as “a set of targeted proposals to ensure the United States has the domestic manufacturing capacity necessary for critical supply chains.”

>Moreover, the Department has long supported objectives such as interoperability with allies’ armed forces and maintaining traditional – pre-Trump – global systems of what it defined as free trade, both of which often clashed with the goal of incentivizing domestic production. These goals were explicitly stated in this George W. Bush administration report, and here’s no evidence that the Obama-Biden Pentagon ever disagreed.

Indeed, the new Biden blueprint indicates that the former Vice President’s definition of supply chain security is pretty global, instead of national, as well:

“Instead of insulting our allies and undermining American global leadership, Biden will engage with our closest partners so that together we can build stronger, more resilient supply chains and economies in the face of 21st century risks. Just like the United States itself, no U.S. ally should be dependent on critical supplies from countries like China and Russia. That means developing new approaches on supply chain security — both individually and collectively — and updating trade rules to ensure we have strong understandings with our allies on how to best ensure supply chain security for all of us.”

If America’s allies were proven reliable suppliers of these products themselves, Biden’s perspective would make sense. But the list of countries that have recently hoarded medical goods for themselves as soon as the CCP Virus pandemic’s full dangers became apparent included most of these allies – meaning that the U.S. vulnerability problem far exceeds “China and Russia.”

Nor is it entirely evident how clearly Biden has thought though the tax policy provisions of his plan. Tax policy’s role is clearly viewed as crucial, as the plan emphasizes that

“Pharmaceutical offshoring has been heavily driven by tax code provisions that have encouraged companies to locate pharmaceutical production in low-tax countries even where those countries have labor and other costs comparable to the U.S.”

Consequently, Biden says he will “eliminate Trump Administration tax incentives for offshoring and pursue other tax code changes that will encourage pharmaceutical production in the U.S.”

At the same time, Biden favors raising the overall U.S. corporate tax rate from the 21 percent to which it has recently been lowered to 28 percent, along with a 15 percent “minimum tax” on large corporations. So good luck to drug companies – or any other companies making goods deemed critical by Biden – gleaning clear reshoring or domestic production ramping signals from this combination.

Perhaps any confusion will be cleared up by other alleged Biden measures to boost U.S.-based production – like “new targeted financial incentives, including tax credits, investments, matching funds for state and local incentives, R&D support, and other incentives to encourage the production of designated critical materials such as semiconductors in the United States”? At best, business will surely need to see many more details along these lines before committing the needed capital.

Unless maybe as President, Biden will simply mandate that the needed new facilities will be built when all else fails (as well as in tandem with those other policies)? That’s obviously the implication of his promise to use the Defense Production Act (DPA) “to its fullest extent to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity in critical supply chains, using the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and applying them to our national needs.”

Or does Biden actually view the DPA as his primary tool for “generating the domestic mobilization we need”? That seems like a reasonable conclusion, especially given that it’s the first specific measure he mentions. Maybe instead he’s really talking about using the Act simply “to direct U.S. companies to ramp up production of critical products that will be needed over the near-term.”

Regardless of Biden’s real intentions, though, it’s anything but clear how Biden believes the DPA can be used to increase U.S. production in many of the industries he mentions as vital where such output has largely migrated overseas That’s especially true for the “semiconductors, key electronics and related technologies, [and] telecommunications infrastructure” he specifies. It’s sure going to be far more difficult than, say, ordering auto companies, to make ventilators.

It’s just as unclear how these Biden’s ideas can succeed without a much stronger trade policy dimension – and specifically, continued and even expanded tariffs. And it shouldn’t be limited to straightening out the muddled views mentioned above. 

Specifically, maintaining levies on chronically subsidized and dumped products like metals, along with sweeping tariffs on systemically protectionist China (and on other similar countries) would send the all the companies and sectors concerned an invaluable message. Bipartisan endorsement of these protections would demonstrates that they really can have confidence that new investments won’t be decimated by trade and broader economic predation. Just as important, an enduring commitment to tariffs would help convince overseas competitors (domestic and foreign owned) that if they want to sell the products in which they have big edges to Americans, they’ll need to make these products in America.

The good news is that at least some of these mysteries may be cleared up “soon,” when this Biden plan promises the former Vice President will release his “comprehensive strategy to create American jobs through modern American manufacturing.” The bad news is that if he what he’s said and written so far is any indication, he’ll have a lot of rewriting to do.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is the New U.S. Trade Report a Virus Portent or Anomaly?

Tags

China, decoupling, Europe, healthcare goods, high tech goods trade, Ireland, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, pharmaceuticals, PPE, protective gear, services trade, Trade, trade deficit, travel services, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Were this morning’s latest monthly U.S. trade figures (for March) just one of those things? Or a sign of CCP Virus-affected trade patterns to come? Evidence for both propositions can be found in the weeds, though on balance I remain confident that as the nation’s economy remains gravely wounded (and could well face worse), its trade shortfall will continue its recent (and highly beneficial) Trump-era trend of narrowing.

The reasons for dismissing the new trade report as an outlier stem from the tendency (with numerous exceptions) of the gap to narrow when the economy weakens and to expand when it strengthens. So it was a real surprise to find that, from February to March, when all indicators showed that a major downturn was beginning thanks to the pandemic, the trade deficit rose a strong 11.57 percent – from a downwardly adjusted $39.81 billion to $44.42 billion.

Also surprising for a U.S. economy that’s not very export focused but that’s usually voracious importer: The main reason for the deficit’s growth both in absolute and percentage terms was a drop-off in the former. In March, total U.S. overseas sales sank on month by 9.63 percent, from an upwardly adjusted $207.75 billion to $187.75 billion. That was the lowest monthly total since November, 2016’s $185.49 billion. Combined goods and services imports were down, too – but by a smaller 6.22 percent, from an upwardly adjusted $247.56 billion to $232.16 billion. That total was the lowest for a month since December, 2016 ($234.56 billion).

Moreover, in terms of the trade balance, March’s worse U.S. performance can’t be pinned on the virus-produced collapse in travel. Make no mistake about it – international travel both to and from the United States did collapse. In value terms, two-way travel sank from $28.77 billion in February to $13.49 billion. In other words, it was more than cut in half. But the travel services trade surplus actually improved during that period – from $4.53 billion to $4.72 billion. That means not only that, on net, legal visitors to the United States (including students) as usual spent more in America than Americans spent overseas between February and March. It means that foreign spending in the United States exceeded Americans’ spending abroad by an even greater amount.

Another puzzling result that doesn’t have obvious staying power – at least not to me: The biggest single contibutor to the March trade deficit increase was a more than doubling of the monthly goods trade shortfall with Europe – from $11.37 billion to $22.97 billion. That’s the biggest monthly total ever and the biggest absolute increase ever (the figures go back to 1997), and the third biggest percentage increase of all time (after July, 1997’s 418.80 percent and March, 1998’s 205.89 percent – both totals coming when trade volumes were much smaller, and big percentage increases therefore much easier to generate).

The big Europe merchandise trade deficit surge, moreover, came on the the import side. These soared to $56.04 billion in March (another record), and the 26.42 percent sequential rise was the biggest since March, 2011’s 29.35 percent.

U.S. goods exports to Europe didn’t do badly – they hit $33.07 billion in March, the third best total ever. But the monthly increase was a bare 0.26 percent.

Some of the Europe trade results were due to a much bigger goods deficit and much greater goods imports from Ireland – which is a major foreign supplier of pharmaceuticals to the United States. Despite the overall sequential decrease in American merchandise exports and imports in March, trade in pharmaceutical preparations rose both coming and going. The trade shortfall increased by 13.25 percent, with imports rising by 14.92 percent. And the goods trade gap with Ireland (not all due to pharmaceuticals, to be sure) soared by 45.81 percent with imports up 41.91 percent.

It’s true that both the deficit with Ireland and imports from the Emerald Isle fell sharply on month in February. But both totals were all-time highs.

At the same time, India is another big pharmaceutical supplier to the United States, and although its March merchandise trade deficit with America shot up by 47.87 percent month-to-month, imports actually dipped (by 0.37 percent).

And what about March U.S. trade with China – which gave the world the virus, and remains a major supplier of the chemical building blocks of pharmaceutical products as well as protective medical gear?

In an unmistakably good development for those who recognize both the health security and broader economic dangers of doing extensive business with a predatory trader that’s increasingly hostile geopolitically, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the People’s Republic plummeted dramatically again – by just over 26 percent month-to-month, to $11.83 billion. You’d have to go back to March, 2004 to find a lower monthly figure ($10.44 billion).

U.S. goods exports to China actually improved sequentially in March – by 16.98 percent, to $7.97 billion. That’s far from the biggest absolute or percentage monthly increase on record. But with China’s economic growth at multi-decade lows due largely to the virus and the Trump tariffs, it’s encouraging that America’s goods exports to China have held up since the Phase One trade deal was signed in January.

U.S. goods imports from China, meanwhile, fell by 13.18 percent on month in March, to $19.81 billion. That total is the lowest since February, 2009 ($18.85 billion), during the depths of the Great Recession.

On a year-to-date basis, the American merchandise merchandise deficit with the People’s Republic is now down an astonishing 32.61 percent. That’s nearly three times more than the comparable drop in the global U.S. goods deficit, and a clear sign that trade diversion and decoupling from China are taking place even as the overall American trade gap narrows – and are likely to continue taking place.

Two other oddities worth noting in the March trade report. First, the manufacturing deficit rebounded from February’s $63.01 billion (the lowest total since February, 2017’s $60.47 billion) to $75.80 billion. That’s a very big 20.30 percent higher. Even though overseas markets for America’s domestic manufacturers are tumbling into recession and maybe worse along with the U.S. economy, manufacturing exports still managed a monthly gain of 3.55 percent in March – to $93.26 billion. But despite signs of weakness in domestic U.S. manufacturing and the overall economy, manufacturing imports shot up by 10.45 percent, to $169.06 billion. It’s difficult to see how either trend lasts until the CCP Virus is brought under control.

Incidentally, the March totals bring the manufacturing trade gap to $220.75 billion so far this year – down 7.01 percent from last year’s comparable $237.38 billion. Manufacturing exports year-to-date as of March are down four percent, and imports have declined 5.38 percent.

Similarly, the longstanding U.S. trade shortfall in high tech goods more than doubled sequentially in March, from $5.13 billion to $10.30 billion. Sure, this increase followed a 55.62 percent plunge in February, but the turnaround is still stunning. And although high tech exports rose in March on month by a healthy 8.55 percent, the big change, as in February, was on the import side – where U.S. purchases from abroad jumped by 22.24 percent.

More detailed March trade data — particularly shedding more light on U.S. trade in healthcare-related goods — should be out from the federal government shortly, and I’ll be sure to keep you up to date on those developments.   

Making News: Jim Bohannon Interview on America’s Compromised Health Security Now On-Line; Returning Tonight to Batchelor Show on China & Supply Chains

Tags

CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Gordon G. Chang, health security, healthcare goods, Making News, manufacturing, medicines, pharmaceuticals, supply chains, The Jim Bohannon Show, The John Batchelor Show, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is on-line of my interview last night on Jim Bohannon’s nationally syndicated radio show.  Click here for a great discussion of America’s troubling dependence on foreign sources of supply for vital medicines and other healthcare products.

Also, I’m slated to return on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show tonight. John, I, and co-host Gordon G. Chang will be looking at how the CCP Virus crisis is likely to change global supply chains and trade products not only for healthcare products, but for all domestic industry, especially when it comes to China.

Tonight’s segment is a little different from usual, because virus-related disruption has led John to tape his programs for now, and I haven’t yet been told exactly when this particular segment will air.

I’ll certainly post that information on Twitter (a compelling reason to follow me there at @AlanTonelson!), but in the meantime, here‘s where you can listen on-line to this evening’s show.  I’ll be posting a link to that podcast as soon as one’s available. And of course, keep checking with RealityChek for news of other upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Making News: On National Radio Tonight on America’s Healthcare Goods Foreign Dependency

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, drugs, health security, Making News, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, PPE, protective gear, The Jim Bohannon Show, Westwood One, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that I’m slated to appear tonight on “The Jim Bohannon Show” on the nation-wide Westwood One network.  The segment, scheduled to begin at 10 PM EST, will deal with America’s dangerous reliance on imports for vital medicines, medical devices, and protective gear for healthcare workers.

You can listen live on-line at this link to this timely discussion of the nation’s at-risk health security.  And as usual, I’ll post a link to the podcast when it’s available.

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

Making News: American Conservative Article Details Scary U.S. Health Security Vulnerability

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, facemasks, health security, imports, Making News, medical devices, pandemics, pharmaceuticals, The American Conservative, Trade, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce the publication of my latest freelance article.  Posted this morning at TheAmericanConservative.com, it presents never-before-seen statistics (gleaned from official U.S. government data) showing alarming U.S. vulnerability to cutoffs of vital medical goods from abroad. P.S.  It makes clear that the problem far transcends China.

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

Those Stubborn Facts: Why Health Security Should “Trump” Free Trade for Americans

Tags

active pharmaceutical ingredients, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, European Union, exports, free trade, globalization, health security, India, medical devices, pandemic, pharmaceuticals, surgical equipment, Those Stubborn Facts, Trade

“[White House Office of Manufacturing and Trade Policy Director Peter] Navarro raised a lot of eyebrows when he warned that [international trade] fights over [healthcare-related goods] loomed and told Fox Business Network on Feb. 23: ‘People need to understand in crises like this, we have no allies.’ But what then seemed potentially alarmist now looks like foresight.”

– Bloomberg News, March 16, 2020

Number of countries that have curbed exports of healthcare-related goods*: 38**

 

*Includes pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical ingredients, medical devices, surgical appliances and supplies

**India, China, India, Taiwan, Indonesia, Belarus, Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, Russia, United Kingdom, and the 27 members of the European Union

 

(Sources: “Export Wars Erupt as Officials Curb Supplies to Battle Virus,” by Shawn Donnan, Bloomberg News, March 16, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-16/trade-war-latest-welcome-to-the-coronavirus-export-wars-of-2020-k7uf1k01; “The Global Mask Shortage May Get Much Worse,” by K Oanh Ha, Ibid., March 10, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-10/the-global-mask-shortage-may-be-about-to-get-much-worse; “Export Trade News,” Foreign Trade Online [latest daily edition], https://www.foreign-trade.com/export_trade.htm; “The World Needs Masks. China Makes Them – But Has Been Hoarding Them,” by Keith Bradsher and Liz Alderman, The New York Times, March 16, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/business/masks-china-coronavirus.html; and “UK bans parallel export of two COVID-19 treatment candidates to protect national supply,” by Janet Beal, “Life Sciences,” IHS Markit, February 26, 2020, https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/uk-bans-parallel-export-of-two-covid19-treatment-candidates.html)

Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight Talking China, the U.S., & the Wuhan Virus…& More!

Tags

Breitbart News Tonight, China, conservatives, coronavirus, COVID 19, globalization, Gordon G. Chang, health security, Making News, manufacturing, medical devices, offshoring, pandemics, pharmaceuticals, Republicans, The Epoch Times, The John Batchelor Show, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show tonight to talk about U.S.-China relations “in a time of Wuhan Virus.”  (Spoiler alert:  They’re not good.  And barring a sea change in China’s behavior, they shouldn’t be.)

The segment, which will also feature co-host Gordon G. Chang, is slated to start at 10:15 PM EST and you can listen live here.  Can’t tune in tonight?  I’ll be posting a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

Speaking of podcasts, here’s one of a “Breitbart News Tonight” interview from last Friday night on the economics and politics of this coronavirus era, with a special focus on the implications for small-government Republicans and conservatives.  Click here and scroll down till you see my name.  Moreover, if you’re not into podcasts, you can read a fine summary at this link.  FYI, I don’t use the phrase “extinction event” often.

Finally, my views were covered recently in two Epoch Times articles.  In the first, from March 3, I emphasized the importance of trade and related economic policies needed to ensure that the United States regains its ability to supply its own pharmaceutical and medical device needs.  In the second, I similarly observed that the very idea of globalizing and offshoring the domestic manufacturing base has become more urgent than ever to challenge given emerging threats like pandemics.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: When Washington Slept on America’s Dangerous Dependency on Foreign Healthcare Products

Tags

active pharmaceutical ingredients, Bureau of Industry and Security, China, China virus, Commerce Department, coronavirus, COVID 19, globalization, health security, healthcare, India, medical devices, national security, Office of Technology Evaluation, offshoring, pharmaceuticals, supply chains, surgical equipment, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Last week I wrote that no one in American politics, in either party, deserves blame for failing to anticipate the China Virus outbreak (in the sense of being ready for a genuine pandemic), and especially the Trump administration’s flawed response to its spread within the United States (as opposed to its timely decision on January 31 to start curbing inbound travel from overseas – initially from China). 

But there’s one big aspect of coronavirus-related public policy where potentially calamitous and avoidable mistakes have been made, and where identifying responsibility is essential (largely to prevent repetition). That’s the growth of America’s dependence on pharmaceuticals, their active ingredients, and other healthcare-related goods from foreign sources, especially from China.

It should have been obvious long before the virus broke out in Wuhan (at least as far as we know) that health security is national security, and that the blithe approval of trade and related policies that encouraged the offshoring of production in this crucial sector was as dangerous as the offshoring of crucial defense and defense-related (because so many inputs to weapons and platforms aren’t weapons themselves) products. Even louder alarm bells should have sounded once it became clear that a leading offshoring destination was China – a dictatorship that has challenged U.S. national security interests long before the rise of current leader Xi Jinping, and whose role in medical supply chains inevitably created the threat of supply cutoffs (as has recently been threatened in the Chinese government-controlled press).

And indeed American policymakers had all the evidence they needed as early as 2011. That’s when a small office at the Commerce Department called the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a report called – yup – “Reliance on Foreign Sourcing in the Healthcare and Pubic Health (HPH) Sector: Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, and Surgical Equipment.”

For many years, BIS’ Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE) has been issuing reports on sectors of the U.S. defense industry and other portions of the economy critical to the nation’s security and their use of foreign parts, components, materials, and other inputs whose availability shouldn’t be taken for granted. And fortunately, the Office and the various acts of Congress that have defined its mission have long understood that, as suggested above, national security-related industries are by no means restricted to those that turn out products that go bang and boom.

Notably, the study was requested by the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which shows commendable foresight. And the main results make jaw-dropping reading today:

>“There is a significant amount of U.S.-based manufacturing for critical healthcare-related commodities.” At the same time, “There is…a very high degree of foreign sourcing and dependency for components, materials, and finished products.”

>“Exposure to supply disruptions is widespread, but many respondents consider it a cost of doing business in the healthcare industry.”

>As a result, “Only 34 percent of respondents are taking steps to reduce their exposure to foreign sourcing and dependency issues.”

>When it comes to the chemical ingredients for drugs, where heavy China dependency has attracted so much attention today, in 2011, pharmaceutical companies reported “difficulty limiting their exposure to foreign dependencies primarily because most of the APIs [active pharmaceutical ingredients] are produced outside the United States.”

>Medical device producers stated that they were “vulnerable primarily due to their reliance on other countries for electronic parts.” Japan was the main concern, due at least in part to the earthquake that year that disrupted many industries’ supply chains. But China has become an even more important supplier since then.

Sadly, however, the record also demonstrates that once the findings came in, no serious follow-through was undertaken.

OTE surveyed 161 companies – 70 pharmaceutical producers, 75 manufacturers of medical devices and surgical equipment, and 16 companies that turned out both kinds of products. Roughly three fourths of these companies were headquartered in the United States and roughly one-fourth were foreign owned.

All told, these firms produced 868 individual pharmaceuticals and 833 kinds of medical devices or surgical equipment. Of these, in turn, 290 pharmaceuticals and 128 types of devices and equipment were deemed by OTE “critical to effective healthcare services in the United States,” meaning “needed in various emergency scenarios.” The bureau also looked into the chemical ingredients and parts and components comprising these products.

As for the specific information sought, here it is:

“Survey respondents were asked to identify the pharmaceuticals and medical devices/surgical equipment they manufactured, integrated/assembled, and/or sold for use in the United States. For each product area selected, companies were then asked to provide the top three company proprietary products they make and the location of manufacture. Finally, companies identified, to the best of their knowledge, whether they were the sole U.S.-based manufacturer, sole global manufacturer, or not the sole manufacturer of each product.”

Some of the above results in greater detail:

More than 73 percent of the total surveyed companies depended on suppliers located abroad for at least one critical component, manufacturing material, or actual finished good. And the average number of such foreign-sourced goods per company surveyed was 11.4. Seventy-nine percent of pharmaceutical firms surveyed reported themselves in this situation versus 63.7 percent of the device and equipment manufacturers, and the average number of foreign-sourced products was 11.4 for the drug companies versus 9.8 for their device and equipment manufacturers.

Interestingly, even at this point, China loomed pretty large large in the picture at that time – especially for medical devices and surgical equipment. Its entities represented 13.8 percent of the total number of foreign suppliers to U.S.-based producers. For pharmaceutical companies, they accounted for 9.1 percent – less than leader Italy (15.7 percent), India (12.8 percent), and Germany (10.6 percent). Not that this result should be especially comforting, as India – a major global producer of generic drugs – has recently announced to restrict exports because it’s experiencing difficulty getting chemicals from China and (surprise?) wants to make sure it can provide for its own population.

The OTE survey, in other words, found that, in 2011, healthcare products companies operating in the United States relied on a diverse global supply chain. But significant vulnerabilities were reported, too. Principally, for pharmaceuticals, “there was no U.S.-based source for at least 65.5 percent of [total goods] identified by survey respondents.” And for medical devices and surgical equipment, the figure was at least 60.5 percent. More troublingly, in the device and equipment sectors, the greatest dependencies tended to be in complex products.

Moreover, when thinking about the safety of imported healthcare goods, keep in mind BIS’ finding that only 60.3 percent of the companies in total could identify the suppliers of their suppliers.

Nor were significant supply disruptions unknown by healthcare products companies. Thirty percent of these businesses reported experiencing at least one of these events between 2007 and 2010, 40 percent of these came from foreign suppliers, and 17.5 percent came from China – the biggest share for any single country. Both domestic- and foreign-origin disruptions lasted an average of 155 days. Nonetheless, these figures are surely way too low, as only 18.3 percent of responding companies said they tracked foreign supply disruptions.

Even so, the study oddly found that “Only 16.6 percent of companies foresee a risk of supply disruptions from outside of the United States” but that 29 percent “believed their company was vulnerable to serious and/or prolonged supply chain disruptions from events or dependencies outside the United States.” For pharmaceuticals, the top concern again was lack of API availability domestically.”

OTE made several policy recommendations to strengthen America’s health security. For example, various major relevant federal agencies should “further examine [the] survey data to prioritize the foreign sourcing and dependencies that could have the greatest impact on the healthcare supply chain in an emergency situation.”

In addition, these agencies, “in coordination with DHS and the Department of Commerce, should assess whether the use of Defense Production Act authorities, such as the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS), could provide the ability to rapidly expand or surge capacity of U.S.-based pharmaceutical and medical device/surgical equipment facilities to meet demand in an emergency situation.” As made clear, however, by the continued sky-high levels of the healthcare industry’s China and other foreign dependencies, the problem was promptly ignored.  

Such measures, along with many others in the trade, tax, and regulatory fields will no doubt be crucial to rebuilding the kind of domestic healthcare industry so many Americans and even their leaders finally recognize is essential. But if the nation really is seriously behind the idea that health security is national security, it’s going to need updated detailed information on foreign dependencies. In other words, time to put the OTE to work again.

Im-Politic: The China/Biden Opportunity Sanders Needs to Seize

Tags

Bernie Sanders, China, China virus, coronavirus, Democrats, drugs, election 2020, health security, Im-Politic, Jobs, Joe Biden, manufacturing, Michigan primary, pharmaceuticals, technology, Trade, World Trade Organization, WTO

Since he emerged as a major rival to Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has been criticized for lacking a killer instinct. Specifically, he’s generally declined to attack his competitors as harshly as many supporters and supposed political pros would like. (The articles here and here nicely frame the history.)  

I don’t feel qualified to weigh in on this debate, but with a crucial primary coming up in Michigan tomorrow, it’s clear to me that the progressive standard-bearer could use more of a killer instinct on a big policy issue: former Vice President Joe Biden’s record on China issues.

Sanders has decided to assail Biden on his overall trade record, which makes sense considering the latter’s support for the kind of trade deals and policy decisions (like NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the rush to expand commerce of all kinds with China) that have hammered workers in manufacturing-heavy states like Michigan. 

But his focus is far too narrow, especially considering developments over the last few years and particularly the last few months. For the Democratic Socialist is solely emphasizing the job and wages loss resulting from agreements like the Biden-endorsed deal that supported China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 – which granted Beijing vital legal protection against unilateral American efforts to fight its protectionism and other forms of economic predation. That mattered greatly because many of these Chinese transgressions persisted post-WTO and by all accounts have worsened under the regime of Xi Jinping.

It’s now clear, however, that the China threat is even worse because it’s far broader; that Biden as long-time Senator from Delaware in particular flunked those non-economic policy tests, too; and that the biggest arguably was the WTO vote. So despite signs from polls that Americans generally (though not necessarily in manufacturing centers) aren’t as opposed to pre-Trump trade policies as in the past, the same surveys make clear that all manner of China-related concerns are mounting, and that therefore hitting Biden for supporting measures that have clearly increased Beijing’s wealth, power, and consequent capacities to threaten key U.S. interests in many fields would succeed roaringly.

Indeed, Biden’s stated justification in 2000 for favoring the crucial WTO decision looks especially and dangerously loopy nearly two decades later, when a Chinese cover-up helped the coronavirus become a serious threat to the United States and the rest of the world at large, when American leaders have finally become aware of how the industrial offshoring accelerated by the WTO move has made the nation shockingly dependent on healthcare products from China, and when the PRC’s official press has just published an article all but threatening to plunge the United States into coronavirus hell by blocking the export of the drugs and their chemical ingredients needed to fight the pandemic.

For in 2000, Biden made clear that he mainly supported China’s entry into the trade body – and ending the policy of granting Beijing tariff breaks only on an annual basis and only if its repressive human rights practices improved – in the belief that this new approach would both promote political and economic freedom in China and help “encourage” its “development as a productive, responsible member of the world community.”

Moreover, Biden not only guzzled the kool-aid of claims that WTO entry would foster greater political as well as economic freedoms in China. He argued that such change was exactly what most of China’s leaders intended. These dictators, he argued,

“have consciously undertaken–for their own reasons, not ours–a fundamental transformation of the communist system that so long condemned their great people to isolation, poverty, and misery. They have been forced to acknowledge the failure of communism, and have conceded the irrefutable superiority of an open market economy.”

Biden was right in noting that economic reforms already by then undertaken had greatly improved living standards for enormous numbers of Chinese. But he was completely wrong in believing that “this growing prosperity” would start bringing more democratic reform and a move toward genuinely open markets. Nor did he foresee that because China’s economic progress depended on amassing ever greater trade surpluses in ever more sophisticated products – and especially with the United States, the world’s biggest, most lucrative market – much of the rise in Chinese living standards would come at the expense of American domestic manufacturing and its workforce.

In fact, Biden explicitly scoffed at fears that WTO entry would bring about “the collapse of the American manufacturing economy, as China, a nation with the impact on the world economy about the size of the Netherlands, suddenly becomes our major economic competitor.”

But in light of China’s growing international belligerence particularly under Xi Jinping, it’s disturbing that the then-Senator – supposedly a foreign policy expert – was equally blind to the likelihood that a WTO-fostered “emergence of a prosperous, independent, China on the world stage” would enable China to flout “international norms in the areas of trade, security, and human rights” whenever it chose, rather than strengthen China’s loyalty to that “liberal global order.” 

Sanders and other critics of the WTO decision rightly derided all of these declared convictions. But I’ve yet to hear him spotlight the dangers to America’s global technology leadership and therefore national security (including health security) generated and continually worsened by the richer, stronger China made possible by the policies supported by Biden and the rest of the bipartisan globalist establishment that ran Washington, D.C. – and U.S. China policy – before Donald Trump’s election as President. P.S. A China that achieved its strategic goals could decimate American living standards still further.

This presidential campaign has already featured so many ups and downs, and so many front-runners who have risen and fallen, that Michigan probably won’t be  Sanders’ last chance to mount a broad-brush attack on Biden’s atrocious China record. (Just FYI, as of this afternoon, the polls show Sanders getting thumped.) The continuing coronavirus fallout could create further opportunities for him as well.

What is clear, however, and to large, growing numbers of Americans, is that enabling the rise of China ranks as one of the most potentially calamitous mistakes in American history.  And the sooner Sanders starts exploiting Biden’s role in enabling it (which continued during the do-nothing Obama administration), the better.