(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Biden Makes Clear: Trump’s China Trade Strategy Sure Won Reelection

Tags

Biden, Biden administration, Buy American, decoupling, Donald Trump, Katherine Tai, manufacturing, monitoring and enforcement, Phase One, sanctions, supply chains, tariffs, U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Meet the new U.S. China trade strategy. And now it’s all but official: Same as the old (Trump administation) China strategy. Further, as should be obvious to anyone with a realistic view of core U.S. interests when it comes to the People’s Republic, that’s decidedly great news for America.

Overlooked amid dramatic developments like the Ukraine war and surging inflation and Ketanji Jackson Brown winning a Supreme Court seat, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai revealed late last month that after years of dumping on the former President’s approach to the subject as unproductive and even counterproductive, Joe Biden has finally agreed that Donald Trump’s priorities on this front were right all along.

Specifically, rather than trying to change the predatory Chinese practices that for decades have victimized U.S. businesses and workers, Mr. Biden’s trade envoy indicated to Congress that this goal had become quixotic.  So the administration would pivot to the eminently feasible aim of using tariffs both to punish Beijing’s offenses and eliminate the advantages created by its subsidies and intellecual property theft and investment blackmail and host of import barriers.

Not that Trump ever explicitly stated that reforming China was pointless. In fact, the Phase One trade agreement he signed with Beijing in January, 2020 committed the Chinese to dismantle numerous protectionist policies. But for two reasons it should have been clear that his administration’s emphasis lay elsewhere. The first was Trump’s relatively early resort to towering and sweeping tariffs. The second was the lopsidedly pro-U.S. nature of Phase One’s dispute-resolution system.

By securing China’s agreement to enforcement procedures that on a de facto basis enabled the United States to tariff China for Phase One violations much more aggressively than vice versa, and that greatly reduced the odds of retaliatory levies, Trump and his trade chief, Robert Lighthizer, signaled deep skepticism that China would verifiably comply with the deal.

Candidate Biden, however, faulted Phase One for failing to address Chinese trade predation, and once elected, told a leading pundit that he’d differ from Trump on the issue by pursuing policies “that actually produce progress on China’s abusive practices.”

Last October, Tai was still complaining that Trump’s deal “did not meaningfully address the fundamental concerns that we have with China’s trade practices and their harmful impacts on the U.S. economy,” and her office repeated the charge just two months ago in the administration’s annual Report to Congress On China’s WTO Compliance. In that survey, moreover, the trade office added, “China is an important trading partner, and every avenue for obtaining real change in its economic and trade regime must be utilized.”

But in testimony to Congress at the end of last month (see here and here), Tai reported that this goal had been dramatically modified – and probably in effect abandoned. She stated that after decades of negotiations (including during the Biden term), “real change remains elusive” aside from instances in which China’s compliance with its trade obligations “fit its own interests.”

Therefore, the Biden team had decided to “turn the page on the old playbook with China, which focused on changing its behavior. Instead, our strategy must expand beyond only pressing China for change and include vigorously defending our values and economic interests from the negative impacts of the PRC’s unfair economic policies and practices.”

In terms of day-to-day policy, Tai’s revelation doesn’t change much. As I – and many others have noted – the Biden administration had decided from the get-go to keep in place nearly every single dollar of the Trump tariffs (see the New York Times interview linked above), and continued – and in numerous cases expanded (see, e.g., here) – its predecessors’ sanctions and export controls targeting Chinese tech entities.

Instead, the new strategy’s impact will mainly be felt going forward. With the last two American presidents now having determined that handling the China economic challenge through diplomacy has been futile, their successors will face enormous difficulties returning to engagement-heavy strategies without unmistakable – and enduring – evidence of greatly improved Chinese behavior. That is, Trump’s focus on punishment and protection are here to stay for the foreseeable future. And indeed, forgetting about changing China through a “Phase Two” agreement, and concentrating trade-wise on shielding the U.S. economy from Beijing’s predation using Phase One’s de facto tariff-ing authority, are exactly the courses I recommended in the mid-2020 article linked above.

The only major remaining uncertainty in U.S. economic policy toward China entails how far the decoupling of the two economies will go. Tai said a week ago that the administration’s goals didn’t include “stopping trade or trade divorce.” But that’s a straw man. The real question entails how far economic disengagement will proceed. And given the administration’s aforementioned tariff and sanctions moves, and related objectives both of creating more secure supply chains in economically and strategically important industries, and boosting domestic manufacturing output through increasing government procurement of U.S.-made products and investments to improve the competitiveness of U.S.-based industry, the answer — encouragingly — seems “pretty darned far.” 

Advertisement

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: The Ukraine Crisis Grows Curiouser and Curiouser

Tags

Annaleena Baerbock, Biden adminisration, China, democracy, deterrence, Eastern Europe, energy, European Union, Germany, human rights, Italy, Mario Draghi, NATO, natural gas, Nordstream 2, North Atlantic treaty Organization, Olaf Scholz, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Phase One, Poland, Russia, sanctions, sovereignty, Taiwan, tariffs, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, trade war, Ukraine

The longer the Ukraine crisis lasts, the weirder it gets. Here are just the latest examples, keeping in mind that new developments keep appearing so quickly that this post might be overtaken by events before I finish!

>What’s with the Chinese? Toward the end of last year, (see, e.g., here) I’ve been worried that President Biden’s Ukraine policy would push Russia and China to work more closely to undermine U.S. interests around the world – a possibility that’s both especially worrisome given evident limits on American power (Google, e.g., “Afghanistan”), and completely unnecessary, since no remotely vital U.S. interests are at stake in Ukraine or anywhere in Eastern Europe.

In the last week, moreover, numerous other analysts have voiced similar concerns, too. (See, e.g., here and here.)

But just yesterday, The Wall Street Journal published this piece reporting on Chinese words and deeds indicating that Beijing opposed any Russian invasion of Ukraine. You’d think that China would welcome the prospect of significant numbers of American military forces tied down trying to deter an attack by Moscow on Ukraine, or on nearby members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or getting caught up in any fighting that does break out. The result of any of these situations would be an America less able to resist Chinese designs on Taiwan forcibly.

It’s unimaginable that Chinese leaders have forgotten about these benefits of war or a continuing state of high tensions in Ukraine’s neighborhood. But according to the Journal, Beijing has decided for the time being that it’s more important to avoid further antagonizing the United States on the trade and broader economic fronts – specifically by helping Russia cushion the blows of any western sanctions. China is also supposedly uncomfortable with the idea of countries successfully intervening in the internal affairs of other countries – because of its own vulnerability on the human rights front, and because it regards foreign (including U.S.) support for Taiwan as unacceptable interference in its internal affairs, too (since it views Taiwan as a renegade province).

Not that China isn’t already acting to prop up Russia’s economy – specifically agreeing earlier this month to buy huge amounts of Russian oil and gas. But if Beijing has indeed decided to go no further, or not much further, the potential effectiveness of western sanctions on Moscow would be that much greater. It would also signal that the Biden adminisration has much greater leverage than it apparently realizes to use tariffs to punish China for various economic transgressions – e.g., failing to keep its promises under former President Trump’s Phase One trade deal to meet targets for ramping up its imports from the United States.

>Speaking of sanctions, the Biden administration view of these measures keeps getting stranger, too. The President and his aides have repeatedly insisted that the best time for imposing them is after a Russian invasion of Ukraine, because acting beforehand would “lose the deterrent effect.”

But this reasoning makes no sense because it – logically, anyway – assumes that the sanctions that would be slapped on would achieve little or nothing in the way of inflicting economic pain powerful enough either to induce a Russian pullback or convince the Kremlin that further aggression along these lines wouldn’t be worth the costs.

After all, pre-invasion sanctions would be taking their toll while the Russians were fighting in Ukraine, and until they pulled out or made some other meaningful concession. The Biden position, however, seems to be that in fact, during this post-invasion period, they’d be taking scarcely any toll at all – or at least not one significant enough to achieve any of their declared aims. If that’s the case, though, why place any stock in them at all at any time?

>One reason for these evidently low Biden sanctions expectations is surely that, at least for now, the administration isn’t willing to promise that the potentially most effective punishments will be used. Nor are key U.S. allies.

Principally, last Friday, Deputy National Security Adviser Daleep Singh told reporters that banning Russia from the global banking system would “probably not” be part of an initial sanctions package. And Germany keeps hemming and hawing about ending the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline project even if Russia does invade.

The Germans – and the rest of Europe – are now acting like they’re taking seriously the need to reduce their reliance on Russian natural gas (which currently supplies some forty percent of their supplies of this fossil fuel. But Berlin has still not committed to cancelling its plans to buy even more gas from Russia via the recently completed Nordstream channel. (The pipeline isn’t yet in use because the Germans are in fact dragging their feet on final regulatory approval.) Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has declared that Nordstream is “on the table” for her if the Russians move militarily. But nothing even like this non-promise has been made by Prime Minister Olaf Scholz. And last Friday, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi said he opposes including energy in anti-Russia sanctions.

>The final puzzle: Although Poland is a linchpin of NATO’s strategy for preventing any Putin aggression beyond Ukraine, the European Union has just moved a major step closer to cutting the country off from the massive economic aid it receives from the grouping, and indeed has already frozen $41 billion in CCP Virus recovery funds it had previously allotted to Warsaw.

The decisions stem from Poland’s alleged backsliding on commitments it made to protect human rights in order to join the EU, but blocking these resources isn’t exactly likely to strengthen Poland’s ability to aid in the effort to contain Russia, and Ukraine itself is hardly a model democracy (see, e.g., here and here) – all of which can’t help but scramble the politics of the crisis in Eastern Europe yet further. And all of which should be added to the already impressive list of paradoxes, ironies, mysteries, and curiosities that everyone should keep in mind whenever they hear about the future of Europe, the global liberal order, world peace, and human freedom itself being at stake in Ukraine.    

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Fatally Flawed Claims that Trump’s China Trade Policies Flopped

Tags

China, Donald Trump, European Union, non-oil goods trade deficit, Phase One, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, trade war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

With charges of spreading misinformation and false narratives in the air once again (not that it’s been entirely absent at any point in recent years), I’d be remiss if I didn’t spotlight a major example of the latter in particular) that’s appeared in the last week or so concerning former President Trump’s Phase One trade deal with China.

Since two years have now passed since Phase One officially went into effect, claims have mushroomed in the Mainstream Media that it’s been a complete failure. (See, notably, here, here, and here.) These claims aren’t new, and they’re not all bunk. For example, it’s true that the Chinese have fallen well short of importing as many U.S. goods as promised. But conspicuously missing in these analyses is the larger and much more important truth that the Trump China trade policies writ large have spurred major progress toward a central declared objective – bringing under control the ginormous American merchandise trade deficit with the People’s Republic.

As known by RealityChek readers, during the 2020-2021 period that represents the only full year period since Phase One began, the U.S. goods trade shortfall with China rose by 14.52 percent. The closest global proxy, the U.S. non-oil goods deficit, was up 15.66 percent. And the U.S. performance doubtless would have been considerably better had decades of neglect of health security by pre-Trump presidents not forced the nation to import massive amounts of personal protective equipment and other CCP Virus-related medical goods from China.

Moreover, since China’s first year (2002) as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), through 2019, the U.S. merchandise deficit with China increased by 234.07 percent. During that same period, the U.S. non-oil goods gap increased by 122.99 percent. So under Trump, a trend that had lasted nearly two decades was reversed – to China’s detriment. And clearly, the stiff tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese products imposed by the former President – which were left completely intact under Phrase One – deserve major credit.

In addition, as reported in the Financial Times on Tuesday, between 2020 and 2021, the European Union’s (EU) merchandise deficit with China ballooned by 36 percent. That’s nearly 2.5 times more than the widening of the U.S.-China gap. And although Beijing lacks unfettered entry into the EU market, Brussels has erected nothing like the Trump tariffs to slow imports from China. In other words, EU trade with China is a clear control group for U.S. trade with China, and the latter dramatically outperformed. 

It’s legitimate of course to claim that bilateral trade deficits don’t matter, and that the trade war conducted by Trump harmed the nation on net (although the evidence is shaky or non-existent when it comes to metrics like output and employment in the trade-heavy U.S. manufacturing, or inflation in the overall economy).

But arguing that Trump’s China trade policy had no effect on U.S.-China trade flows or the China trade gap, or left the former President’s goals on this front unmet, says nothing useful about the state of bilateral commerce, but speaks volumes about the biases of the critics.

Making News: Back on National Radio with the Verdict on Trump’s China Trade Deal

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, Donald Trump, Gordon G. Chang, John Batchelor, Making News, Phase One, tariffs, Trade, trade war

I’m pleased to announce that tonight I’m scheduled to be back on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor.” Air time for the segment is yet to be determined, but the show is on nightly between 9 PM and 1 AM EST. You can listen live on-line here as John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and I examine whether former President Trump’s 2020 China trade deal deserves the failing grades it’s been getting in the Mainstream Media. (See, e.g., here.)

As usual, if you can’t tune in, the podcast will be posted as soon as it’s on-line.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Lots to Like in Biden’s (Trump-y) China Trade Policy Vision

Tags

allies, Biden, Biden administration, Center for Strategic and International Studies, China, Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP, decoupling, Donald Trump, economics, economists, exports, Katherine Tai, managed trade, multilateralism, multinational companies, Phase One, tariffs, U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, Wall Street, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Despite my strong interest in U.S.-China trade issues, I’d originally decided not to post on chief U.S. trade official Katherine Tai’s Monday speech on the Biden administration’s strategy for these challenges for two main reasons. One, her remarks were widely (and reasonably well) covered by major news organizations; and two, the big news they revealed was, as expected (including by me), making clear that the Trump administration’s sweeping and often steep tariffs on Chinese goods would remain in place for the foreseeable future.

Since then, however, the think tank that hosted the event (the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies) has posted not only her presentation as delivered, but the transcript of a lengthy Q&A session that followed. And those exchanges, along with passages from her speech that have received little attention, shed lots of new light on a great many other significantly promising points about the Biden China trade approach that Tai only touched on in her speech, and one-and-a-half points that are still worrisome.

The grounds for encouragement?

First, Tai made an especially forceful and pointed argument that the pre-Trump China trade and broader economic policies (which Biden strongly supported as a Senator and as Barack Obama’s Vice President) had been a major failure. In her prepared text’s words, “For too long, China’s lack of adherence to global trading norms has undercut the prosperity of Americans and others around the world.”

In addition, China’s predatory policies (my term, not hers)

“have reinforced a zero-sum dynamic in the world economy where China’s growth and prosperity come at the expense of workers and economic opportunity here in the U.S. and other market-based democratic economies. And that is why we need to take a new, holistic, and pragmatic approach in our relationship with China that can actually further our strategic and economic objectives for the near term and the long term.”

In other words, after decades of promises and hopes that commerce between the two countries would become a winning proposition for both (as mainstream economists also insisted), the Biden administration has officially declared such interactions to have been win-lose – with the United States and especially its workers the losers.

Indeed, Tai wasn’t even close to being finished horrifying the economic mainstream or the corporate China Lobby. She pointedly refused to call Trump’s January, 2020 Phase One trade deal a “failure,” and declared that even though it “did not meaningfully address the fundamental concerns that we have with China’s trade practices and their harmful impacts on the U.S. economy,” it ”is useful and has had value in stabilizing the relationship.”

In addition, going forward, Tai told her audience that more trade Trump-ism was likely. She indicated that the administration might approve a new Trump-like initiative to impose new tariffs to enforce Phase One more effectively. She also poured decidedly cool water on the idea that the President would move to join a Pacific Basin trade deal (now called the “Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership” or CPTPP) touted as a means of containing China, but nixed by Trump partly because its rules created wide open backdoors for goods with lots of China content.

More broadly, Tai signalled that the United States was now perfectly fine with dispensing with free trade orthodoxy in practice much of the time in favor of “managed trade” – which a questioner defined correctly as “governments setting targets [for exports and imports] and trying to achieve them” and which was embodied in China’s Phase One commitments (not yet satisfied) to boost buys of U.S. imports. ‘

Tai depicted such arrangements as having “evolved out of a frustration with the previous model. [which she described as “let’s seek market access and then, you know, let the chips fall where they may.”] And so the question that I bring to this issue that you’ve presented is not ideologically how do I feel about it, but what is actually going to present results and what is actually going to be effective.”

And she plainly portrayed them in a much more favorable light than the notion of relying on the World Trade Organization (WTO), which trade policy traditionalists have fetishized as the globe’s best hope for creating an international trade system that promoted free and fair competition through a set of detailed rules and regulations, along with a supposedly impartial legal system for resolving disputes.

In Tai’s words, however, “We brought 27 cases against China, including some I litigated myself, and through collaboration with our allies. We secured victories in every case that was decided. Still, even when China changed the specific practices we challenged, it did not change the underlying policies, and meaningful reforms by China remained elusive.”

As a result, Tai said, “as much as we will continue to invest and commit and try to innovate in terms of being a member at the WTO and seeking to bring reform to the WTO…we also need to be agile and to be open-minded and to think outside of the box with respect to how we can be more effective in addressing the concerns that we really have been struggling to address with China on trade.”

In addition,Tai also surely shocked her audience (and yours truly – pleasantly) by openly questioning the decades-long bipartisan push to increase U.S. exports to China:

“I think that part of the story of the U.S.-China trade relationship over these recent few decades has been about this thirst on the part of our business sector in particular for increased market access to China. In business sector I include our agriculture sector, obviously. You know, I think along the traditional lines of the way we’ve thought about trade and how benefits come from trade, it has been very focused on securing market access. I think that what we’ve seen is our traditional approach to trade has run into a lot of realities that are today causing us to open our eyes and think about, is what we’re looking for more liberalized trade and just more trade or are we looking for smarter and more resilient trade?”

With China facing mounting economic troubles due largely to its Ponzi-like real estate housing system and a stagnating population, that’s a valuable warning for American producers who still expect China to keep growing spectacularly and to offer gigantic, ever-expanding new markets for their goods and services.

Nonetheless, Tai specified that the Biden administration isn’t on board with widespread calls to decouple America’s economy from China’s:

“I think that the concern, maybe the question is whether or not the United States and China need to stop trading with each other. I don’t think that’s a realistic outcome in terms of our global economy. I think that the issue perhaps is, what are the goals we’re looking for in a kind of re-coupling? How can we have a trade relationship with China where we are occupying strong and robust positions within the supply chain and that there is a trade that’s happening as opposed to a dependency?”

I understand Tai’s reluctance to embrace decoupling openly. It runs too great a risk of making life in China for U.S. companies doing entirely ordinary, unobjectionable business there even harder than it’s already become, especially lately. But the reference to “re-coupling” struck me as totally unnecessary – and as unrealistic as the notion that Washington is skilled enough to preserve just as many connections to make sure that bilateral commerce does serve mutual legitimate interests, but not so many as to maintain or worsen dangerous dependencies on China, or increase its economic and technological power.

And Tai’s speech lauded the Biden aim of dealing with the China economic and technology challenges in concert with U.S. allies way too enthusiastically. As I’ve written, my prime worry has always been that priotizing this kind of multilateral approach will force the US to accept lowest-common-denominator measures that will always be sorely inadequate because so many of these allies depend so heavily on trading with and investing in China.

Nevertheless, Tai declared that “vitally, we will work closely with our allies and likeminded partners towards building truly fair international trade that enables healthy competition,” and even called this approach “the core of our strategy” on China and trade generally.

As I’ve written, U.S. Trade Representatives are rarely the last word on trade policy. So whatever Tai’s just said, I’m still not ruling out the possibility that the President will use some pretext (promises of climate change progress?) to bring back the bad old days. Certainly, that’s what Wall Street and multinational businesses want. But these Tai observations have made such a U-turn much more difficult politically. And if you agree with my cynical view that politics (mainly due to growing American public hostility toward China) and not principle is what’s produced Mr. Biden’s unexpectedly Trumpy positions toward the People’s Republic, that ain’t bean bag.

Glad I Didn’t Say That! Biden Keeps Following The Trump on China Trade

Tags

Biden, China, Donald Trump, Glad I Didn't Say That!, Katherine Tai, Phase One, tariffs, Trade, trade war

“China is the big winner of Trump’s ‘phase-one’ trade deal with Beijing. True to form, [then President Donald] Trump is getting precious little in return for the significant pain and uncertainty he has imposed on our economy, farmers, and workers.”

– Candidate Joe Biden, January 15, 2020

 

“President Joe Biden’s chief trade negotiator pledged to build off the deal with China reached under Donald Trump and said that….[the] Biden administration respects the continuity of the so-called phase-one agreement….”

– Bloomberg.com, May 5, 2021

 

(Sources: “Biden Slams Trump-China Trade Deal as Lacking on Key Disputes,” by Jennifer Epstein, Bloomberg.com, January 15, 2020, Joe Biden Blasts Trump Phase One U.S.-China Trade Deal – Bloomberg & “Biden Trade Chief Pledges to Build Off Trump’s China Agreement, by Eric Martin, Ibid., May 5, 2021, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/biden-trade-chief-pledges-to-build-off-trump-s-china-agreement?srnd=economics-vp)

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Trump-y New U.S. Trade Report – in a Good Way

Tags

Biden, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Donald Trump, exports, goods trade, imports, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, non-oil goods trade deficit, Phase One, services trade, Trade, trade deficit, trade war, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although it covered a presidential transition month, there wasn’t much transitional about the official U.S. international trade figures for January that came out Friday. Trump-y policy fingerprints were all over them – and mostly in a good way – mainly in the form of continuing declines in the monthly deficits for China and the manufacturing sector, two main targets of the former President’s efforts to reduce the overall shortfall.

At the same time, also visible were the distorting affects of the CCP Virus, and the stop-and-start nature of so much economic activity in the United States and throughout the world, which seem certain to impact all economic data for several more months.

Overall, the combined goods and services trade deficit rose 1.86 percent sequentially in January, and the $68.21 billion total was the second highest on record – after November’s $69.04 billion. The goods deficit also hit its second largest total in history, with its $85.45 billion level representing a 1.58 percent increase over December’s total, and trailing the $86.89 billion all-time high also set last November. The services surplus, meanwhile, inched up on month in January by 0.47 percent, to $17.24 billion. This monthly improvement was the first since June for this virus-battered segment of the U.S. and world economies.

Total exports rose by a mere 0.53 percent, to $191.14 billion, and goods exports grew by 1.56 percent, to $135.66 billion. These were the best monthly performances in both categories since last February. Services exports, however, dipped for the first time since July, with the 0.47 percent monthly January decrease bringing the level to $56.28 billion.

A new record was set on the import side – January goods purchases from abroad reached $221.11 billion, surpassing October, 2018’s 218.91 billion, and exceeding December’s total by 1.57 percent. Total imports grew by 1.19 percent on month, to $260.16 billion, but services imports fell sequentially in January by 0.88 percent, to $39.05 billion – the first monthly decrease since May.

In an apparent setback for Trump’s tariffs and other elements of his trade policy, January also saw the second highest monthly deficit in U.S. non-oil goods trade. RealityChek regulars know these trade shortfalls as the “Made in Washington trade deficit”, since they strip out the results for petroleum and services – sectors that are rarely dealt with in trade deals or similar policies, and in which liberalization efforts remain minor.

But the $85.52 billion January level has been topped only by November’s $86.40 billion.

Nonetheless, the U.S. manufacturing deficit in January sank by 6.32 percent, from $106.52 billion to $99.79 billion. The decrease was the third straight, and the monthly gap was the smallest since last June’s. Manufacturing exports declined by 3.47 percent sequentially, to $81.66 billion, while imports dropped by a greater 5.05 percent, to $181.46 billion.

One big reason for this encouraging manufacturing performance was the January narrowing of the manufacturing-heavy U.S. goods deficit with China. January’s $26.50 billion total was 3.60 percent lower than December’s $27.23 billion, and the best such figure since May’s $26.96 billion.

U.S. goods exports to the People’s Republic plunged sequentially by 12.19 percent, to $12.86 billion, and this fall-off was especially discouraging given Beijing’s commitments under the year-old Phase One trade deal to boost imports. Moreover, the monthly decrease (to the lowest level since October) was the biggest percentage-wise since the January, 2020 crash dive of 18.96 percent, when much of China’s economy was shut down by the virus.

Yet China’s much greater goods exports to the United States fell by 6.60 percent, from $41.86 billion to $39.11 billion. This monthly total was the lowest since July’s $40.66 billion, and the sequential decrease also was the third straight. This slump, coming on top of the 3.59 percent decrease in U.S. goods imports from China in 2020, was no doubt due in part to the Trump tariffs on some $360 billion worth of Chinese goods that were as central to the former President’s China trade policies as the trade deal, and that President Biden has decided to keep so far.

Even more important, it can’t be a complete coincidence that U.S. manufacturing output has held up well during the pandemic period as these levies stayed in place. They must have played a significant role in preventing Chinese products from outcompeting their domestic counterparts for the American demand for manufactures that the virus left over.

As a result, the clearly related China and manufacturing performances could be teaching a valuable lesson to the Biden administration: Although virus-related distortions to U.S. trade flows will end sooner or later for reasons only partly related to official policy decisions, the fate of Trump’s China tariffs is entirely up to the President. That makes his eventual decision whether to continue or lift them the most important trade-related wildcard of all still facing the U.S. economy.

Making News: Podcast Now On-Line of New National Radio Interview on Biden & China

Tags

Biden, China, Donald Trump, Gordon G. Chang, Making News, Phase One, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show on U.S. China trade policy. Click here for a timely discussion with John and co-host Gordon G. Chang on the outlook for America’s approach to the People’s Republic as the Biden administration settles into office.

One especially interesting point: Although John seemed to focus on how China fell well short of meeting its commitments under Donald Trump’s Phase One trade deal to boost its purchases of American-origin goods and services, I pointed to some data indicating that the agreement produced some important achievements on this front.

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

Those Stubborn Facts: A Trump China Trade Deal Scorecard Without the Hysteria

Tags

China, China trade deal, Phase One, tariffs, Those Stubborn Facts, Trade, trade agreements, trade policy, trade war

China’s global imports, calendar year 2020 y/y: -1.1 percent

China’s imports from the U.S., calendar year 2020 y/y: +9.8 percent

 

“Thus [Trump’s] Phase 1 agreement appears to have contributed to 

some improved U.S. export performance to China, even if China is

far away from meeting the year one commitments.”

 

(Source: “U.S.-China Phase 1 Trade Agreement – Data Through December 2020; China has increased purchases of agricultural and energy products above 2017 levels but did not reach first year agreed purchases in 2020 and won’t reach the agreed level even if measured from March 2020-February 2021,” by Terence P. Stewart, Current Thoughts on Trade, February 6, 2021, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/02/06/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-data-through-december-2020-china-has-increased-purchases-of-agricultural-and-energy-products-above-2017-levels-but-did-not-reach-first-year-agreed-purchases-in/)

Glad I Didn’t Say That! A Changed Biden Tune on Trump’s China Trade Deal

Tags

Biden, China, Donald Trump, Glad I Didn't Say That!, Phase One, tariffs, Trade, trade deal, trade war

”China is the big winner of Trump’s ‘phase-one’ trade deal with Beijing.  True to form, Trump is getting precious little in return for the significant paid and uncertainty he has imposed on our economy, farmers, and workers.”

–Presidential candidate Joe Biden, January 15, 2020

 

”The Biden administration will review all national security measures put in place by former President Donald Trump, including the U.S.-China Phase 1 trade deal signed in January 2020….”

—Reuters, January 29, 2021

 

(Sources: “Biden Slams Trump-China Trade Deal as Lacking on Key Disputes,” by Jennifer Epstein, Bloomberg.com, January 15, 2020, Joe Biden Blasts Trump Phase One U.S.-China Trade Deal – Bloomberg and “White House says U.S.-China trade deal among issues in broad review,” by Steve Holland and Andrea Shalal, Reuters, January 29, 2021, White House says U.S.-China trade deal among issues in broad review | Reuters)