(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Trump was Still Right to Nix Obama’s TPP Trade Deal

Tags

Asia, Barack Obama, bilateral trade agreements, China, export-led growth, mercantilism, multilateral trade agreements, non-tariff barriers, rules of origin, subsidies, tariffs, tech transfer, TPP, trade surpluses, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

At first I was irritated with President Trump for his expressions of interest this year in reviving U.S. efforts to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – the Pacific Rim-wide trade agreement that former President Barack Obama couldn’t persuade Congress to ratify, and that Mr. Trump removed from America’s policy agenda during his first week in office.

I still wish the President had kept the TPP consigned to the proverbial ash heap of history. But I do see one silver lining in his apparent about-face: the new opportunity it creates to remind how awful the Obama TPP was, and in particular how cynical the case that it represented a masterful ploy to contain the rise of Chinese power regionally and globally, and even shape it to serve America’s goals of sustaining an open world trading system.

In fact, it’s entirely possible that Mr. Trump’s apparent new openness to TPP results at least partly from widespread claims from mainstream politicians and analysts that its multilateral nature endowed the deal with much more potential to curb China’s trade predation than the unilateral tariffs he’s announced.

Yet this contention is the one that’s most easily refuted. First, the version of the treaty signed by Obama contained a wide open back door for many Chinese exports by allowing goods that contained high levels of content produced outside the TPP zone to be traded freely within the zone. Given how central China is to Asia-wide production chains, these loose rules of origin were bound to enable China to enjoy crucial benefits created by the TPP without incurring any of the obligations.

Second, until the eve of its departure from office, neither the Obama administration nor any TPP supporters in Congress or the mainstream media or the think tank world lifted anything more than the occasional pinky even to protest perhaps the principal source of China’s rising economic and military power – the massive transfer of cutting edge knowhow, along with capital, from U.S. tech companies to Chinese business partners or other institutions, either voluntarily (including through shortsighted training programs and investments in Chinese entities) or involuntarily (due to Beijing’s widespread practice of linking access to the China market to the handover of critical technology).

The sudden transformation of these corporate panda-huggers and their hired American guns into China skeptics and even hawks has demonstrated nothing more than that national security is the last refuge of a trade policy scoundrel – especially since by all accounts, U.S. technology and investment continue pouring into China – including defense-related tech. (See here and here for some evidence.)

Third, there’s no reason to believe that most of the other key TPP members have any interest in turning China into a free-trading economy. Quite the contrary. Whether it’s Japan or Singapore or Vietnam or Malaysia, most of the treaty’s most important countries have followed China-style economic development models (except when they’ve borrowed from Japan’s somewhat different but of course much earlier blueprint). And economic openness emphatically isn’t in the recipe. What’s central to these strategies is amassing trade surpluses with the United States and the rest of the world to help generate adequate levels of growth and employment.

The bottom line: Most TPP countries knew that effective disciplines on the trade predation largely responsible for China’s surpluses could be used against their own subsidies and non-tariff barriers. Conversely, it’s surely the reason that these economies accepted the paper curbs on mercantilism that are mandated by TPP. They’re rightly confident that thanks to the secretive bureaucracies that keep their economies effectively closed – and their barriers difficult for outsiders even to identify, much less litigate – none of these curbs is remotely enforceable.

Even better for TPP’s mercantile majority, the treaty’s dispute-resolution system ensured that the United States would be repeatedly outvoted when it sought to advance or defend its interests.

That’s why the TPP was so likely to supercharge America’s already enormous and economically damaging trade deficits. The TPP mercantilists’ liberalization promises would do nothing substantial to open their markets and increase U.S. export opportunities. But America’s TPP commitments, carried out by a government characterized by transparency, would be very effective guarantees that the American market would remain wide open to the TPP majority’s products.

President Trump has demonstrated that he recognizes many of these fatal flaws in the Obama TPP. His stated preference for bilateral over multilateral trade deals suggests an understanding that the former give the United States much more legal authority in dispute resolution. Moreover, he has explicitly tweeted that he’d only back rejoining the TPP if major fixes were made.

Precisely because he’s the only American President in recent memory to show any interest in changing the nation’s ill-considered trade status quo, and any awareness that the United States retains ample leverage to achieve its trade objectives unilaterally, I can’t rule out the possibility that Mr. Trump might turn TPP into a winner for the U.S. domestic economy (as opposed to the importing and offshoring lobbies).

But the main lesson that should be taken from decades of American trade diplomacy with Asia is that economies structured to promote exports and limit imports are going to stay substantially closed no matter what promises they make. Therefore the best course for the United States to make is to expend its energy and resources on reducing its economic engagement with Asia, rather than trying to remake the region in anything like its own image.

Advertisements

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: So You Think There’s Free Trade in Steel?

Tags

China, overcapacity, steel, subsidies, tariffs, Trade, transshipment, Trump, U.S. Commerce Department, U.S. International Trade Commission, World Steel Association, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If there’s anyone out there who honestly believes that global steel trade has anything to do with free trade or free markets, and that many of America’s leading trade partners other than China are directly or indirectly complicit in rigging this commerce against the United States, here’s some data you need to see.

And P.S. – notwithstanding their own efforts to keep government- subsidized Chinese metals out of their markets, and the lip service they pay to the idea of cooperating to cut China’s massive overcapacity, the number of countries whose steel industries in particular have been doing just fine all the same should make clear why World Trade Organization (WTO) and other multilateral actions can’t possibly address the underlying problem of the Chinese state-sponsored glut. At least not until via tariffs or similar measures, Washington makes clear that the economies, who comprise the vast majority of WTO members, can no longer abet the Chinese with impunity.

First, let’s look at the percentage of world steel output by country (or political grouping, in the case of the European Union), and how it’s changed recently. These are volume figures from the World Steel Association for the world’s leading steel producers:

         2010                                                   January, 2018

US:    7.46                                                           4.89

China:   42.62                                                    48.05

EU 27: 12.18                                                    10.32*

Japan:   7.73                                                        6.48

South Korea:   4.12                                             4.39

India:   4.82                                                         6.47

Vietnam:   0.30                                                    0.76

Taiwan:   1.39                                                      1.41

Turkey:   2.06                                                      2.28

Brazil:   2.32                                                        2.06

Russia:   4.48                                                       4.09

Thailand:   0.29                                                    0.30

Canada:   0.92                                                      0.82

Mexico:   1.18                                                      1.16

Argentina:   0.36                                                  0.25

South Africa:   0.54                                             0.41

Egypt:   0.47                                                        0.47

Australia:   0.51                                                   0.35

* The January, 2018 figures are for 28 European Union countries.

What leaps out from these statistics: Except for Australia, the country that has lost the greatest percentage of global output share by far during this period has been the United States. And everyone else has either gained or pretty much held their own. Anyone care to explain this development by arguing that the United States has the world’s least competitive major steel sector? By a mile?

Next let’s take a look at changes in steel-producing countries’ exports to the United States over the last year. In and of themselves, they don’t prove that these economies are transshipping steel to the American market to help Beijing evade recent U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel, or that they have been responding to their own China steel problems by ramping up their exports to the United States. But the size and suddenness of these export increases is certainly noteworthy. In particular, it’s kind of amazing how much surge capability these figures make clear is apparently possessed by smallish countries.

Here’s how America’s steel imports have increased by volume in percentage terms from some important steel producers between the third quarter of 2016 and the third quarter of 2017, according to the U.S. Commerce Department’s latest figures:

global total: +19.56

China: -5.0

India: +209.0

Russia: +64

Taiwan: +36

Thailand: +274

South Africa +68

United Arab Emirates +98

Many of the value figures, drawn from the U.S. International Trade Commission, are even more striking. (These numbers cover iron and steel products and their percentage increases between full-year, 2016 and full-year, 2017.) Some of these percentage increases reflect the “law of small numbers” – the ease with which modest increases in absolute terms can generate big relative increases when the baseline is low.

But all of the below countries sold at least $13 million worth of iron and steel products to the United States in 2017. Also, all of the below increases followed sizable, and some cases enormous, decreases between 2015 and 2016, when overall U.S. imports fell by 25.7 percent. And this list leaves out countries whose iron and steel exports to the United States grew in both years, but ramped up rapidly in 2017. The main examples are Indonesia, the Dominican Republic, Kazakhstan, and Peru.

World: 35.6

China: 15.2

EU 28: 19.4

Japan: 1.6

South Korea: 21.2

India: 88.8

Taiwan: 33.1

Brazil: 51.8

Russia: 98.1

Australia: 65.4

Thailand: 213.7

Canada: 26.6

Mexico: 27.4

Argentina: 198.6

Albania: 583.5

Bahrain: 26,148.1

Belarus: 116.9

Colombia: 96.6

Georgia: 57.0

Guatemala: 430.1

New Caledonia: 70.7

New Zealand: 64.8

Oman: 81.1

Pakistan: 41.1

Peru: 127.4

Philippines: 147.1

Saudi Arabia: 794.5

Ukraine :111.1

United Arab Emirates: 123.7

Zimbabwe: 376.1

These data paint a compelling picture of the world’s leading steel producers complaining endlessly about the distortions created by China’s state-created global steel glut – to the point of creating a special multilateral forum for addressing the issue – but playing footsie with the Chinese behind the scenes at American steel producers’ expense. Which places a heavy burden of proof on opponents of President Trump’s response to explain how this situation bears any resemblance to free trade, and why broad-based tariffs aren’t an absolutely essential response.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Case for Trump’s New Metals Tariffs

Tags

alliances, allies, aluminum, China, inflation, manufacturing, overcapacity, steel, subsidies, tariffs, Trade, trade law, Trump, World Steel Association, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

President Trump has announced his decision to impose tariffs on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum – cue the trade war hysteria. And the national security hysteria. And the inflation hysteria. Here are some talking points I hope the administration will feel free to steal as it defends the decision in the days leading up to the release of the final tariff plan:

>Many countries have declared their intention to retaliate against the American tariffs with higher barriers to U.S. exports. Curiously, they are overlooking the Chinese government-subsidized overcapacity at the root of the long-time distortions in world steel and aluminum markets.

>Many of these countries want the problem tackled multilaterally. But the World Trade Organization (WTO) has failed to stem this overcapacity (or deal effectively with many other forms of Chinese trade and broader economic predation), and a G20 forum specifically addressing the steel issue has produced nothing since its founding in December, 2016.

>Although major steel-producing powers like the European Union have imposed their own steep tariffs on shipments from China, the global glut has continued. One reason may be that, since the global economic recovery took hold in 2010, according to World Steel Association data. the United States has been the major steel producer that has suffered by far the greatest loss of global production share by volume. (See this post of mine for the 2010 figures and the Steel Association’s latest report for the most recent – January, 2018 – figures.) And as of the most current World Steel Association data (2016), the United States is also the steel producer with the highest steel trade deficit by volume (21.7 million tons). 

>As a result, charges that American steel tariffs in particular will jeopardize the rules-based global trade system seem to be arguing that this system requires the United States to remain as the world’s dumping ground for government-subsidized steel.

>A much more constructive response from America’s trade partners would be finally getting serious about shutting down China’s overcapacity and placing market forces back in the saddle for global steel pricing. The Trump tariffs should be seen as a signal that the United States will no longer accept world steel trade patterns that treat the United States as the fall guy, and should therefore act as a spur to achieve genuinely meaningful multilateral results.

>The above gaming of global steel trade by so many American trade partners also explains the need for the kinds of sweeping measures made possible by the national security-oriented Section 232 of U.S. trade law, rather than the narrower curbs required by, say, the countervailing duty statutes.

>Fears have been expressed in the U.S. foreign policy community, and by the Trump administration’s Defense Department, that certain tariff schemes may needlessly harm America’s relationships with key security allies. Those voicing such concerns should also explain why countries that would permit these U.S. measures to undermine alliance relationships should be seen as reliable partners when overseas crises erupt.

>Tariff opponents contend that America’s use of an allegedly bogus national security rationale for the curbs will open the doors for other members of the WTO to use equally specious justifications for their own tariffs on numerous products. These opponents seem to forget that most of the world’s major economies, which rely heavily on export-led growth resulting from large trade surpluses, so far have encountered little difficulty in protecting their own domestic markets via a wide range of both tariff and non-tariff trade barriers.

>New national security rationales for new tariffs will be especially suspicious if used by the numerous American security allies that have been free-riding on U.S. defense guarantees for decades – and skimping on their own defense spending. These allies include Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Canada.

>Tariff critics also insist that the American economy will suffer major harm from foreign retaliation. They seem – oddly – convinced that U.S. trade partners that rely heavily on net exporting to the United States for their growth have nothing to fear from further the American trade restrictions that may result. Will these countries really launch trade attacks on one of their best customers?

>Tariff opponents focusing on economic impacts argue that the measures will increase the cost of a key American manufacturing input, and reduce the competitiveness of domestic steel-and aluminum-using industries. They seem to fear that these industries cannot become or remain globally competitive if such inputs are priced via free market mechanisms, rather than kept artificially cheap due to foreign government decisions.

>These economically focused tariff opponents also seem to believe that the current U.S. economy is one characterized by companies that enjoy considerable pricing power. Given inflation that has long undershot the Federal Reserve’s target, that’s a difficult argument to understand.

>In addition, those with an economic focus appear unconcerned about the prevalence and spread of government interventions in trade flows not only in steel, but in a wide variety of traded goods. If foreign governments conclude that they can subsidize and dump two key American industries out of existence, why would they stop with steel and aluminum? How can a growing presence of foreign government-subsidized goods (and services) help strengthen free markets in the United States and enable Americans to reap their maximum gains? And how can such growing foreign intervention help the global economy as a whole progress toward reaping the maximum gains of unfettered trade?

Over to you, Mr. President!

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Can We Get Real About China’s Trade Dumping?

Tags

China, consumers, dumping, free markets, Martin Feldstein, prices, steel, subsidies, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

In the spirit of the holiday season, rather than slam noted economist Martin Feldstein for producing yet another stale though dangerously misleading blanket warning against the horrors of trade protectionism, I’ll note that he’s just (unwittingly, to be sure) created a teachable moment about instances in which erecting trade barriers is absolutely necessary. Those instances concern a practice called dumping, and in particular when the culprit is a country like China.

In U.S. and world trade law, dumping consists of selling a product or service in a foreign market at prices deemed to be excessively low. (Their specific definitions differ – see here and here for how.) For someone not steeped in these subjects, it’s entirely reasonable to ask, “What’s the problem?” After all, if a producer wants to provide a major price break for his or her foreign customers, why should those customers look a gift horse in the mouth? But for a leading economic light like Feldstein – who has been a top presidential economic adviser (in the Reagan years), it’s hard to excuse his use of the term.

The reason is that the decision to dump can result from dramatically different circumstances with dramatically different stakes for the future of the kind of U.S. economy most of us presumably want to ensure. Feldstein suggests that dumping is basically no different from the kind of price drops businesses can put in effect when they’re so technologically advanced or otherwise efficient that they can undersell less competent rivals. But this example is completely irrelevant to dumping law.  Neither the U.S. nor World Trade Organization versions penalizes this kind of progress.

Feldstein might have added a common claim that, even when these international price differentials do exist, they’re no different than when producers (or service providers) decide to put their wares on sale in certain parts of the United States but not others – maybe as a special deal to jump-start business in a region they’re entering, or to energize business in a region where they’re lagging.

But although this argument against sanctioning foreign producers for dumping is more on target, it still misses the mark in a crucial respect: The dumping engaged in by countries like China is fundamentally different. And the reason is that it’s typically subsidized by foreign governments.

Such subsidized dumping is objectionable, and downright dangerous to the American economy, for several reasons that have somehow eluded Feldstein – and most of his fellow economists. Principally, it forces companies that operate in a free market setting, with all the constraints that imposes on pricing policies, to compete against companies that face no such constraints – or tend to enjoy the freedom to under-price for long periods of time.

If you’re fine (like Feldstein and other conventional wisdom-mongers?) with government-dependent entities (I hesitate to call them “businesses”) gaining the upper hand in the United States, then logically this isn’t a problem. If you believe that the American economy works best for all concerned when free market principles and practices are encouraged to the greatest extent possible, then you should be deeply concerned.

As a result, it should be easy to distinguish between bargain-basement pricing from companies that have either very patient founders or other shareholders, or lots of cash on their balance sheets, or both, from such pricing from entities that can keep drawing on foreign treasuries. The former, after all, stems from actors that are trying to judge the fundamentals of a market place, that “put their money where their mouths are,” and who will eventually be rewarded for being correct or punished for getting it wrong. The latter is a function of the decisions and priorities of foreign governments. And with a country like China, where the government maintains a whip hand over the economy, there can be no reasonable doubt which kind of pricing we’re dealing with.

All believers in free markets by definition agree on the superiority of the free market incentive system. But as often seems to be the case, they easily forget free market values, and the need to safeguard them, when it comes to international trade. (Monopoly and competition issues represent another example of this selective capitalism syndrome.)

That’s not to say that all government subsidies should be opposed. Many (like America’s minority- and women-owned business “set asides”) seek to promote important goals that societies have every right to prize. Others seek to promote important goals that societies literally can’t do without (like government support for defense industries). And even these wrinkles can have wrinkles. For example, many manufactured goods can be crucial for national defense even though they’re not weapons themselves, or even though they have many uses other than military. Steel, to which the Trump administration is considering extending major protection for just these reasons, is a newsy example.

So many dumping allegations and cases can be genuinely complicated, and understandably controversial. But even if you believe that systems of trade law can ultimately resolve these disputes in acceptable ways (I don’t), it should be clear that government-fostered dumping simply doesn’t belong in this category, and that government-run economies like China’s don’t deserve the standard legal protections (like presumption of innocence) when put in the dock.

What should be even clearer: Anyone not recognizing this basic dumping distinction should never gain the ear of those officially responsible for America’s well-being. But because it’s the holiday season, I won’t specifically recommend blackballing Martin Feldstein. At least not right now.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Real Promise – & Pitfalls – of Foxconn’s New US Manufacturing Plan

Tags

assembly, Carrier, components, flat panel displays, Foxconn, incentives, innovation, Jobs, manufacturing, Paul Ryan, productivity, regulatory reform, Scott Walker, subsidies, tariffs, tax breaks, tax reform, Terry Gou, Trade, trade policy, Trump, Wisconsin, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Sorry for the recent absence – and during an incredibly newsworthy period!  There’s been lots of important economic data released recently, which I’ll be reporting on in upcoming days.  So what to focus on in this return offering?  One recent story that seems to reflect many of the biggest developments and trends of the Trump administration’s first six months is the announcement this past week that the Taiwanese electronics giant Foxconn will be spending $10 billion to build a new factory for flat panel displays in southeastern Wisconsin. 

Think this is a stretch?  Then consider this:

The announcement, which could become a big win for the American economy – and a big feather in the president’s cap –was completely upstaged by a series of White House personnel shakeups orchestrated by Mr. Trump himself.

Moreover, the Mainstream Media accounts invariably combined their longstanding hostility to the president with their instinctive rejection of the possibility that unconventional economic ideas and policies can have any merit. 

For instance, they uniformly focused on the job-creation effects of the new factory – which, as typical for capital-intensive products and industries, will be relatively modest – to portray the news as ruse by the president to convince voters that he was keeping his campaign promise to revive manufacturing employment.  Their main evidence?  The tax breaks and other subsidies the project would receive, which came to many thousands of dollars per position, which were easy to depict as a first class boondoggle.

Further, the media uniformly depicted employment as the only possible upside to strengthening the nation’s high value manufacturing.  Its major contributions to the economy’s productivity growth – which could use a major helping hand – and to its innovative capacities, were completely ignored. 

At the same time, the reporting overlooked crucial questions that need to be answered to assess whether the new Foxconn factory will live up to its promise.  Principally, will it be engaged in components production – where so much of manufacturing’s value-added comes from?  Or will it simply be assembling final products from imported components, as has been the case with other recent foreign electronics investments?  If the latter, the subsidies it’s garnered will be much more difficult to justify.  And in this vein, have either federal or Wisconsin authorities imposed any conditions that would encourage genuine manufacturing?   

Not that the Foxconn announcement completely vindicates globalization policy critics, either – or at least not those who, like me, have insisted that manufacturing revival that matters will require a thorough recasting of American trade policy.  I’ve been especially skeptical of the idea that jaw-boning a la Trump plus some subsidies could make a real difference – though I’ve insisted since Mr. Trump as president-elect intervened in the Carrier company’s decision to offshore Indiana manufacturing jobs that his use of the bully pulpit could greatly aid the welcome transformation of America’s approach to manufacturing that he seemed to have in mind.  And for the record, I’ve been skeptical that subsidies can be decisive, either – because America’s financial support for manufacturing was so unlikely even to approach the scale of, say, China’s. Finally, I’ve never thought that the kinds of regulatory reform efforts Mr. Trump has launched would matter much, either, given that so many potent American trade rivals are practically regulation-free.  

At this early stage, the jury is still out.  But since the Foxconn announcement has hardly been unique, and no significant changes have taken place in U.S. trade policy other than a withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the president so far is doing a pretty good job of proving me wrong.

Nonetheless, I’m still confident that, sooner rather than later, the manufacturing needle won’t be moved without imposing trade curbs of some kind.  Although avowed fiscal conservatives like House Speaker Paul Ryan (of Wisconsin) and his state’s governor, Scott Walker, enthusiastically supported the Foxconn incentives package, their appetite for such measures – even when reduced taxes are involved — is likely to be limited for other parts of the country because of their budget-busting effects.  Indeed, it looks like Ryan may wind up accepting a smaller corporate tax cut in Congress’ tax reform package for precisely this reason.  Moreover, these breaks could easily be offset by similar moves by foreign governments – and added to existing predatory practices like currency manipulation and tariffs of their own.  And I remain convinced that a high-income country, first world country like the United States can never rely heavily on deregulation to compete better against very low-income, largely regulation-free third world countries like China or Mexico. Nor should it want to. But no initiatives could match the power of policies that would limit or close off access to the world’s greatest economic and commercial prize by far, the American market.

In fact, as Foxconn’s CEO has strongly suggested, the threat of U.S. tariffs helped persuade him to promise to manufacture much more in America.  And he’s hardly alone in the corporate world, as I’ve reported.  That’s why I’m somewhat worried about the administration’s reluctance actually to impose tariffs, as opposed to threatening them.  If Mr. Trump keeps hemming and hawing about steel tariffs, and if he keeps opposing ideas like the border adjustment tax, which has just been stripped from Congress’ tax reform package, America’s competitors could easily conclude that his trade policy is largely bluff, and that they can keep using Americans as customers and not workers after all.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Fed Figures Support Case for U.S. Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

Tags

aluminum, capacity utilization, Federal Reserve, Great Recession, imports, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, iron and steel products, manufacturing, primary aluminum products, recovery, steel, subsidies, tariffs, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s Federal Reserve industrial production figures contain data supporting claims that the American domestic steel and aluminum industries face heavy global competitive pressures rooted in predatory trade practices that require vigorous responses.

According to the new data, which update the U.S. manufacturing picture through June on a preliminary basis, inflation-adjusted output for all American factories rose by 0.19 percent month-to-month, and by 1.36 percent year-on-year.

Real production of iron and steel products fell by 0.51 percent sequentially in June, and are up by just 0.47 percent on year. For primary aluminum products, the figures are better: monthly after-inflation output improved by 0.26 percent, and it advanced by 1.79 percent over the June, 2016 levels.

Longer term, though, the trends in these two sectors, and in U.S. domestic industry as a whole, have diverged sharply. Since the Great Recession officially broke out, the Federal Reserve data show that American manufacturing’s constant dollar output still hasn’t fully recovered. Indeed, it’s still down by 4.03 percent.

But real iron and steel products production is still 18.55 percent lower than at the recession’s onset – more than nine years ago. Inflation-adjusted primary aluminum production stands at less than half its December, 2007 levels, having plummeted by 53.01 percent.

The plight of steel and aluminum is also apparent from the capacity utilization figures. For all of domestic American manufacturing, utilization rates were 75.88 percent. That’s 3.72 percent below the last pre-recession level of 78.81 percent.

For iron and steel products, the drop has been much steeper – capacity utilization is down 21.47 percent from its December, 2007 level of 92.11 percent. And although the latter level looks unusually high, it had been achieved regularly by these producers during previous decades.

The Fed doesn’t keep capacity utilization figures for aluminum. But statistics for the broader primary metals sector indicate that its fate has been nearly as bad. Capacity utilization since the end of 2007 has sunk from 83.52 percent to 68.24 percent – an 18.30 percent plunge.

As widely reported, this deterioration has coincided – at the very least – with an explosion in the production and export of subsidized steel and aluminum from China. As has been much less widely reported, U.S.-based producers have borne the brunt of the costs. Although comparable numbers are not available for aluminum, the American share of the global steel market has fallen by considerably more during the current economic recovery than the shares of other steel-production countries and regions. In addition, the United State runs by far the world’s biggest steel trade deficit.

It’s still unclear whether or not President Trump will decide to impose any national security-related tariffs on steel imports, which countries’ shipments will or won’t be hit, or what other measures he might approve if the tariff route is rejected. But it’s all too clear that without significant action from Washington, two more important American manufacturing sectors could needlessly fall victim to foreign trade and broader economic policies having nothing to do with either free trade or free markets.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Former White House Economists Serve Up Steel Trade Fakeonomics

Tags

competitiveness, durable goods manufacturing, imports, manufacturing, multi-factor productivity, national security, productivity, steel, steel-using industries, subsidies, tariffs, Trade, Trump, White House Council of Economic Advisers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Just because none of the signers displayed the slightest ability to foresee the approach of an horrific national and global economic crisis is no reason to laugh off the letter released by former White House economists warning President Trump not to impose national security-related tariffs on steel imports. Instead, the letter should be laughed off because none of the signers appears to know anything about manufacturing competitiveness.

According to the letter, endorsed by fifteen former Chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, steel tariffs of any kind “actually damage the U.S. economy” partly because they “would raise costs for manufacturers, reduce employment in manufacturing….”

If you think about it for just a minute, what these economists are really arguing is that American steel-using industries can’t possibly achieve reasonable levels of competitiveness without continuing supplies of a key input that are kept artificially cheap by massive subsidies from governments in China and elsewhere. That’s some recipe for preserving and extending free market and free trade practices around the world.

Even worse, however, is that even this dubious claim is directly contradicted by the best data available – including the newest multi-factor productivity statistics released by the Labor Department yesterday.

These data in particular strongly reinforce worries not only that American manufacturing is suffering major productivity problems, but that these problems have been worsening for many years. And just as important, they show that the steel users in particular have suffered from absolutely no shortage of artificially cheap steel.

For example, from 2009 (when the current economic recovery began) through 2015 (the latest data, multi-factor productivity in these industries (which measures the output resulting from a wide range of inputs, including materials like steel) has fallen by 2.17 percent. In durable goods industries as a whole (a super-sector that uses a lot of steel), it rose by 3.92 percent, which sounds OK. But it’s much weaker multi-factor productivity growth than these sectors achieved during the last recovery (which was considerably shorter): 22.27 percent.

What happened to steel imports from 2009 through 2015, measured by value? They surged by 71.87 percent. And these purchases were kept at that level mainly because during the last year of that stretch, steel imports sank by 20.91 percent. In other words, between 2009 and 2014, steel imports jumped by 117 percent – and presumably left over lots of steel for use by durable goods manufacturers the following year.

Steel imports soared during the previous, 2001-2007 recovery as well (by 156 percent). But whereas they increased at roughly double the rate during the first six years of the current recovery, steel users recorded multi-factor productivity gains that were 5.7 times greater.

During the long 1990s expansion (which technically lasted from 1991 to 2001), steel imports increased by only 28.67 percent. And even so, durable goods manufacturers managed a total productivity gain of 22.72 percent – just about the same improvement as during the import-happy early 2000s, even though import growth was only a seventh as great. And this productivity advance was orders of magnitude better than that of the current recovery, even though import growth has been less than a third as strong.

Now it’s true that durable goods productivity numbers have been boosted significantly by the spectacular performance of the information technology hardware sector (whose use of steel is relatively modest). But examining multi-factor productivity trends for much bigger steel users also yields head-scratching results if you take the former White House economists as gospel.

For example, during the first six years of the current recovery, when steel imports rose by nearly 72 percent, multi-factor productivity for fabricated metal makers actually sank by 4.02 percent. In machinery, it was down 0.93 percent. In electrical equipment, appliances, and components, multi-factor productivity dipped fractionally.

Transportation equipment is the only big steel-using sector where multi-factor productivity grew impressively during this period – by a total of 11.09 percent. But during the final year – 2014-15 – it dropped by 4.39 percent. And again, these companies were benefiting from plenty of artificially cheap steel.

So it’s clear that the former White House advisers’ steel trade analysis is anything but data-dependent. That leaves as their only anti-tariff argument their fears about setbacks in American diplomacy – where they possess no special expertise or even knowledge. Far better for these macro-economists to stick to macro-economics – though again, the overall U.S. performance here should inspire no confidence in their judgment, either.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: At the WTO, Europe Claims a Right to Free Ride

Tags

Airbus, alliances, Boeing, Charles Dickens, Defense Department, EU, European Union, foreign policy establishment, free-riding, NATO, North Atlantic treaty Organization, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, subsidies, Trade, trade law, Trump, World Trade Organization, WTO

Charles Dickens famously observed that the law can be an idiot. Last week’s World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling on U.S. and European Union (EU) aerospace subsidies reminds that American alliance policy can be idiotic – and in a key respect has been for decades. The fault here lies not with the WTO – which is hardly beyond criticism. Instead, the problem entails an American approach to international security relationships that continues a decades-long record of enabling brazen free-riding even under the current U.S. administration – which so far has decried this practice only rhetorically.

Interestingly, the WTO decision last Friday looks like a big win for American aerospace giant Boeing and a big loss for its EU rival Airbus. The trade body ruled as still illegal only one of the original 28 subsidies provided Boeing by Washington state and the federal government that were challenged by Airbus. According to Airbus, the WTO agreed with its allegation that some of the other 27 means of Boeing support were subsidies, but Boeing says that since the ruling determined that these payments had not harmed Airbus, they can remain in place. Airbus disagrees, so expect more litigation.

But here’s what’s completely outrageous. Some of the subsidies Airbus successfully challenged – at least on paper so far – were U.S. Defense Department subsidies. It’s jaw-dropping enough to recognize that Airbus gets military support, too. What’s worse is that so much of the Pentagon money handed over to Boeing (and other defense contractors) has been spent on weapons and other military systems that the United States would not need at all or in such quantity either if Washington hadn’t taken on any role in protecting Europe for decades, or if the Europeans bore anything like an appropriate burden for the own defense.

And don’t forget: For decades, even most U.S. Presidents and other foreign policy establishmentarians who have assign supreme value to continuing current transatlantic security arrangements agree that too many European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have been shirking. Talk about biting the hand that shields you.

It’s important, however, to keep in mind who’s mainly to blame. It’s clear that the Europeans deserve no high marks for either gratitude or loyalty. But it’s also clear that their actions can be reasonably portrayed as legitimate efforts to maximize their own self interests – reflecting the equally reasonable judgment that these gambits long have been good bets to succeed.

What the American public needs to ask is (a) why their leaders have handled alliance relationships so ineptly as to have created expectations of free-riding that the WTO case shows are now seen as nothing less than a right to free-ride; and (b) whether the avowedly transactional Trump administration will view the EU defense subsidy charges as a long overdue opportunity to say enough’s enough.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: What’s Really Wrong with Obama’s Aluminum Trade Case

Tags

aluminum, Fareed Zakaria, Obama, overcapacity, subsidies, Trade, Trump, U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, Washington Post, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

What’s most laughable about the Obama administration’s new World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge against China’s subsidies to aluminum producers isn’t the decision to file the complaint with just over a week left in office (although admittedly that’s pretty laughable). What’s most laughable is the continuing belief that the WTO is an effective instrument for fighting such predatory trade practices.

After all, as claimed by a U.S. industry leader in a statement cited by the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) office itself, “China’s subsidies have done enormous damage to the U.S. and global aluminum industries.” USTR’s press release, moreover, goes on to present data making clear that the PRC’s state-supported overcapacity building dates back to at least 2007, and that private sector American rivals that need profits have been forced to respond to the resulting global price crash by dramatically slashing both production and capacity.

It’s bad enough, as USTR admits, that President Obama’s main response until yesterday was completely ineffectual “engagement” with Beijing in various official bilateral talk shops. Mr. Obama allegedly even brought up the subject with Chinese president Xi Jinping last September. The results, according to USTR? “[W]hile China has expressed a willingness to continue talking about the excess aluminum capacity situation….China has not been willing to take concrete steps to address it.”

And now, with the number of aluminum smelter in the United States having fallen from 14 to five since 2011 – “with only one operating at full capacity” – the administration has decided to begin a WTO process that could take 15 months (counting appeals) to complete and, if Washington wins, authorize countervailing tariffs. Further, if Beijing loses and promises to end its aluminum transgressions, the United States will be faced with the probably insuperable challenge of monitoring compliance by China’s highly secretive bureaucracies.

This morning, Washington Post and CNN pundit Fareed Zakaria wrote that “Chinese elites” he’s recently met with are “remarkably sanguine about [President-elect] Trump” and his attacks on Beijing’s trade-related economic practices. If the incoming president relies heavily on the WTO to fight China’s predation, their complacency will be amply justified.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Obama’s Private Sector Jobs Recovery was Increasingly Government Driven

Tags

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, government spending, healthcare services, Jobs, Obama, real private sector, recovery, subsidies, subsidized private sector, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Last Friday, President Obama’s cheerleaders hailed that day’s December U.S. jobs report as proof positive that the outgoing administration has been a roaring success on the employment front. Central to their argument, according to Mr. Obama’s economic advisers themselves, has been the administration’s record in fostering private sector job gains.

In other words, the Obama camp has just given us the latest reminder that the way the government gathers and analyzes statistics can conceal at least as much as it reveals about economic trends. The main problem when it comes to such private sector jobs? As I’ve repeatedly noted, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ definition of that portion of the economy includes enormous sectors – notably healthcare services – where levels of demand (and therefore employment) depend heavily on massive government subsidies.

And the December numbers – which provide the first take on Mr. Obama’s complete jobs performance (several revisions will be made in the months to come) – once again reveal that employment gains in what I call the “real private sector,” have been much less impressive. And that’s important because the real private sector is where the results depend largely on market forces. Therefore, they’re much better indicators of the American economy’s health than developments in industries strongly influenced by politicians’ decisions.

The December monthly figures were stellar for the subsidized private sector. It generated 70,000 of the 156,000 net new jobs (nearly 45 percent) created that month, and nearly half of the 144,000 employment improvement in the private sector as it’s conventionally defined.

These figures were unusually high. But they continue a trend that becomes clearer when looking further back into the current recovery (which pretty much coincides with President Obama’s term in office).

For 2016, as a whole, the subsidized private sector was responsible for 592,000 of the 2.157 million jobs added on a net basis – or 27.45 percent. The real private sector, meanwhile, contributed just over 64 percent of the new employment. (Government took care of the balance.)

Three years ago, the comparable numbers were 14.92 percent of total new non-farm jobs on net for the subsidized private sector and 87.23 percent of such employment for the conventionally defined private sector.

In other words, the subsidized private sector’s share of new American job creation nearly doubled, while the real private sector’s share fell by more than 26.55 percent.

From another perspective, over the last three years, the subsidized private sector’s share of the conventionally defined private sector has more than doubled – from 14.60 percent to a shade under 30 percent.

Incidentally, it’s critical to keep in mind that, if anything, these data greatly understate the importance and growth of the subsidized private sector. For they count only those subsidized private sector jobs that can be easily identified in the official monthly job reports. Digging deeper into these data would reveal many more such positions – for example, in medical-related manufacturing. And another large group of subsidized private sector workers is much more difficult to quantify – those engaged in defense-related manufacturing and service provision.

Finally, don’t mistake this effort to distinguish the subsidized from the real private sector as an effort to brand the former as “bad” by definition and the latter as similarly “good.” Any number of subsidized private sector jobs perform worthy and often vital work. Moreover, even most conservatives haven’t yet figured out a viable way to eliminate government from healthcare.

And when it comes to healthcare, don’t forget that its strong employment growth, and indeed dominance of subsidized private sector payrolls in part reflects the aging of the American population and its consequently greater medical needs.

Instead, view this analysis as an exercise in greater precision and recognizing change. Good luck running an economy successfully without them.