(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.

Advertisements

(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.

Following Up: More on Why Tariffs Can Bring Back Much U.S. Manufacturing

Tags

Andrew Grove, China, Defense Science Board, exports, Following Up, Foxconn, globalization, innovation, Intel, manufacturing, offshoring, reshoring, subsidies, tariffs, Trade

What a shame that David Barboza’s New York Times article on all the help from government in China that powerfully shaped Apple’s investment decisions was published during the holiday week – when so many Americans are paying so little attention to the news . A Pulitzer-worthy piece of reporting, it also adds to the abundant evidence debunking two critical claims often made about the globalization of manufacturing.

First, the article makes clear how much offshoring of American industry has taken place due to foreign government decisions that clash violently with the idea of “free trade.” And second, it exposes further weaknesses in a related, though more recent, claim that most offshoring during the 21^st century has stemmed not from foreign tariffs and similar interventionist economic policies, but from technological innovations that enable effective management over far-flung international manufacturing operations. This second claim is especially important, since it’s also been used to demonstrate that American tariffs will be unable to reverse this offshoring significantly.

Apple’s chief manufacturing partner in China, Foxconn, claims that the government supports it receives in the PRC are “no different than similar tax breaks all companies get in locations around the world for major investments.” And Barboza mistakenly seems to confirm this argument, characterizing China’s various market-distorting practices as “not unlike” those “in other countries, “including the United States, where states and cities vie for companies” – except that they are much greater in scale and much more secretive.

But the author himself provides key examples to the contrary. For instance, the Chinese province in which Apple’s manufacturing is concentrated is actively encouraging Foxconn to export. And when the company meets these targets, it gets hefty bonuses. Exports were also fostered via rebates for the value-added tax Foxconn would otherwise pay for at least the first five years of its operation.

Nor was China’s central government simply a bystander. Of course, the value of its currency was manipulated – which artificially lowered the price of goods China exported (including those from factories affiliated with foreign companies like Apple) and raised the price of imports for Chinese individual and certain business consumers. But there was also this scheme described by Barboza:

“Since China began opening its economy to the outside world in the 1980s, the government’s policies have encouraged manufacturing and exports with the creation of special economic zones. But those same policies have discouraged domestic consumption of overseas brands.

“Most products made in China by big multinationals had to be physically shipped out of the country and then brought back so that they could be taxed as imports — hence, the U-turn employed by many companies.”

Revealingly, these arrangements stayed in place well into the 21^st century, and similar export-focused zones can still be found all over China.

Barboza’s reporting also bears out arguments I made in a post last week on this subject – that technological change has been a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the export of advanced manufacturing capacity, and that much offshoring was encouraged by the guarantees of wide-open access to the U.S. market provided by trade policy decisions like backing China’s entry into the World Trade Organization.

As the author notes, “When Apple first moved into China, the country was largely a low-cost production site.” That was in the late-1990s. He also quotes a former long-time executive for Wal-Mart and other multinationals as stating that most of these firms’ China investments represented “supply chains good at making things in the East and selling them in the West.”

China’s domestic market has of course developed impressively since then. But as I observed last week, the continuing importance of exports to these firms’ business models has been spotlighted by their loud protests of Donald Trump’s plans to erect trade barriers against production they aim at American customers.

But it’s also crucial to point out that this initial offshoring of production set in motion a dynamic with huge future implications for America’s economy and for today’s claims about “knowledge-based” offshoring of scientific and technical knowhow – and jobs – that supposedly are immune to trade policy overhaul. Simply put, the offshoring of production made the export of manufacturing’s more knowledge-based activity inevitable in case after case.

The two main reasons: First, super low-cost developing countries are full of smart, people that are highly educable, and trainable by multinational corporations; and second, manufacturing production and innovation rarely exist in isolation. Their relationship is typically interactive, and fueled by continuing and close contact between the researchers and engineers and product designers etc who come up with new products and processes, and the production supervisors and other workers who need to translate their ideas into real world products.

And don’t take my word for it. Listen instead to the late Andrew Grove, founder of Intel. Or Hank Nothhaft, retired Chairman and CEO of Tessera Technologies. Or former Allegheny Technologies executive Jack Schilling. Or the Defense Science Board (both quoted in this 2010 study).

In other words, Apple has found success in locating its manufacturing “brain work” thousands of miles from its production work.  But that formula appears to be the exception, not the rule, in manufacturing, including in advanced manufacturing.  And interestingly, this tech giant has recently announced it’s building its first two research and development centers in China.  

So the United States has a fundamental choice ahead of it.  It can keep listening to multinational companies and their hired guns, pretend that the keys to long-term prosperity move around the world purely or even largely due to market forces, and run ever greater risks of sliding into second-class status.  Or it can finally recognize Washington’s immense potential power over globalization, and use it to make sure this process works for its own citizens and domestic producers as well.    

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Case for Trump’s Carrier Jobs Policy

Tags

2016 election, Carrier, Donald Trump, Jobs, manufacturing, offshoring, subsidies, tariffs, Trade, United Technologies, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Donald Trump’s initiative to prevent manufacturing jobs from being offshored from Indianapolis to Mexico (at least what we know of it so far) makes me feel like one of those “two-handed” economists that so frustrated former President Harry Truman. You know – the ones he complained would always give him an “On the one hand…on the other hand” answer when he was seeking clear advice. Here’s what I mean. (Spoiler alert: As you’ll see, however, on balance, the Carrier news is encouraging.)

On the one hand, I wish the President-elect had never vowed during the campaign to prevent the Carrier company from closing that factory and sending the production and employment south of the border in order to save on labor costs – or at least to punish it with tariffs if it proceeded. After all, individual offshoring decisions can be heavily dependent on the special characteristics of the products and/or markets in question. Therefore, it seemed the height of hubris and even folly to risk personal political credibility, or the credibility of an entire policy agenda (in this case, on trade) on stopping a single instance of such job flight.

Moreover, Carrier’s intent to carry out the operation by the middle of next year ensured that the new president had created an effective deadline that would likely force him to try to act before his new administration was fully in place. Addressing the problem before he even took the oath of office seemed even more ill-advised.

In addition, the kind of deal being reported, hinging largely on tax incentives for Carrier to stay stateside, wasn’t the kind I would have struck. As I’ve explained repeatedly, even with America’s remaining and often considerable productivity edge in most sectors of advanced manufacturing, tax-focused policies suffered too many shortcomings to prove an effective tool for reshoring, or persuading businesses not to leave in the first place.

For example, many multinational manufacturers in particular pay little or no actual taxes, whatever their nominal liabilities might be. Further, it’s difficult to see how a first world country like the United States – whose citizens rightly insist on first world levels of public services – could win or even be competitive in a tax-cutting competition with third world countries, where expectations of government are so much lower. (Unless Americans want to see their country’s budget deficits shoot even higher?) And when it comes to the flip side of tax breaks – subsidies – nothing that American leaders have ever proposed, or are likely to propose, is remotely in the league of the subsidy programs of countries like China.

Indeed, Carrier itself has a long history of offshoring even when offered or given tax incentives. As widely noted, the company had received breaks from Indiana shortly before it decided to export the Indianapolis facilities. And in 2004, the company actually turned down similar offers from New York State after announcing its intent to move production to the American South and to Asia. The numbers were simply too paltry.  (See the first link in the preceding paragraph.)

As a result, I’ve always favored what Mr. Trump emphasized during the campaign – imposing a stiff tariff on products that offshoring companies sought to sell back to the United States. As he rightly noted, access to the U.S. market remains paramount in the business models of nearly every business on earth that seeks world-class status. Consequently, conditioning that access on producing and employing domestically – no matter what the job and production flight destination – was the best bet to keep factories at home, to bring many back or induce new U.S. facilities, and to lure more foreign-owned capabilities.

And yet there’s that proverbial other hand – which strikes me as dominant at least in terms of Carrier’s Indiana facilities in particular. First, in conjunction with his repeated promise to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, it looks like Mr. Trump is determined to keep at least many of his trade and manufacturing-related campaign promises. This should be applauded both by trade policy critics and by anyone who believes that the yawning, chronic gap between politicians’ rhetoric and their actions has dangerously corroded American democracy.

Second, the President-elect’s initiative again signals his awareness that international trade and investment flows have been profoundly shaped by government – and therefore human – decisions; that these decisions at least as often reflect special interest priorities or simply mistaken perspectives as they do expert calculations of national interest; and that when evidence abounds that they’re doing more harm than good, they can and should be changed.

So at least for the next four years, Americans, and especially American workers, won’t have to be settle for leaders content to cry a few crocodile tears over trade-related job and production loss even while insisting that they’re the inevitable casualties of an impersonal, uncontrollable, and of course ultimately beneficial force called “globalization.”

Moreover, although the Carrier plan by no means rules out a more comprehensive, trade-centered response to offshoring over the next four years, Mr. Trump’s actions so far have also already usefully shed light on executive actions that can potentially make a difference before one is put into place, and that in certain cases might be superior alternatives to tariffs.

For example, it’s been speculated that the President-elect could use the reliance of Carrier’s parent company, United Technologies (UT), on government military contracts to keep the Carrier factories state-side. Ideas along these lines have also been proposed in Congress.

UT apparently isn’t devoid of leverage, either – e.g., it’s the sole supplier of engines for the new F-35 jet fighter. But does an American company really want to threaten an incoming president – and the country as a whole – with withholding a product crucial for national security? Be very, very skeptical.

In this vein, Mr. Trump also seems to be in the process of showing that the bully pulpit powers of the presidency still matter. Carrier’s Indiana offshoring decision attracted national attention because of some special factors. It both took place during a presidential campaign, and generated a video that went viral and dramatically illustrated the outrage and anguish felt by the workers seemingly fated to lose their livelihoods.

But most other such corporate moves fly under the radar, especially the national media’s. The president-elect seems determined to make sure that offshoring decisions become headline news and therefore that heat will be felt by politicians in both major parties who have grown accustomed to blithely rationalizing them with the “impersonal forces” argument – unless they’re ignoring them altogether.

Appreciating the bully pulpit effect also rebuts a criticism already widely being made of the Carrier deal – that it will simply persuade other companies to threaten to move factories overseas in order to get juicy tax breaks. As the Carrier-United Technologies latest reaction to this controversy has made indisputably clear, most businesses hate the kind of bad publicity that Mr. Trump’s spotlight has generated. They’ll like it even less if a President of the United States publicly accuses them of extortion – especially a chief executive who’s proved he can connect with large percentages of the electorate, and as a result who’s demonstrated over and over again that he can break the major rules of American politics and come out a winner.

Following Up: Where Trump on Trade Falls Short

Tags

2016 election, advanced manufacturing, apparel, Donald Trump, Follwing Up, Hillary Clinton, inflation-adjusted growth, Made in Washington trade deficit, multinational corporations, NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, offshoring, offshoring lobby, recovery, regulation, Rust Belt, steel, subsidies, taxes, The Race to the Bottom, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade law, World Trade Organization, WTO

Donald Trump has just given a deadly serious, detailed, and common-sensical speech about the need for overhauling American trade policy, and the establishment media has decided to respond largely by dredging up the fatuous observation that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee himself produces his name-brand apparel overseas.

Before dealing with some of the genuine – though anything but fatal – shortcomings of Trump’s trade speech, let me (again) dispose of this ignorance-based cheap shot: The very trade policies that Trump has been attacking have practically destroyed the domestic U.S. apparel industry. When Trump claims that it’s nearly impossible to make garments in this country profitably anymore, he’s absolutely right. Indeed, the Federal Reserve’s industrial production data show that, since the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect in January, 1994, and launched the current, offshoring-focused stage of U.S. trade policy, domestic garment output is down nearly 83 percent in real terms. That’s a bloodbath.

Yes, that means that some companies still produce clothing in the United States. But it also means that the biggest money in the industry has taken the hint that opening the American market to competition from penny-wage developing countries with no meaningful environmental or worker safety regulation has been an invitation to shut down or join the party and offshore. Any journalist who fails to mention these facts is either clueless or trying to sell you a bill of goods.

At the same time, since most of the public isn’t well informed about trade and manufacturing specifics, either. And since a torrent of such slanted coverage – which has been echoed by Trump’s presumptive November rival, Hillary Clinton – can definitely affect voter judgment, Trump needs to make it as difficult as possible for opponents to portray him as a know-nothing or a hypocrite on what he clearly sees as a core issue. This is where his Tuesday speech – which overall, I liked – fell somewhat short. Here are some important examples:

>Trump deserves a lot of credit for pointing out that misguided policies have killed not only employment – especially in trade-sensitive manufacturing – but growth throughout the economy. But he left off the table eye-opening figures on just how great the trade toll has been. As I’ve documented, during this feeble economic recovery alone, the growth of that portion of the trade deficit directly influenced by trade policy (what I call the Made in Washington trade deficit) has so far slowed this already feeble expansion by some 20 percent. That’s more than $400 billion after inflation, and he should have defied anyone to insist that huge numbers of jobs haven’t been destroyed as a result.

>The likely GOP standard bearer also rightly blasted American political and business elites for pushing these damaging policies. But explaining exactly why will not only educate the public – it will further infuriate voters. As I’ve written repeatedly, and most comprehensively in my book, The Race to the Bottom, the offshoring focus that has dominated U.S. trade policy since the early 1990s resulted from American multinational corporations realizing that expanding commerce with low-income countries would enable them to improve their own (though not the nation’s) competitiveness and boost profits by supplying the high-price American economy from super-low cost and largely unregulated production sites.

In other words, for all the talk about gigantic, rapidly growing third world markets, post-NAFTA trade deals weren’t mainly about expanding American exports – and therefore growth, employment, and wages. They were mainly about expanding U.S. imports from the multinationals’ new foreign production sites. That is, big American business wanted Americans to keep playing their roles as consumers of the products they made. They just didn’t want them to keep playing their roles as producers of these products. You don’t think a critical mass of voters would be outraged to hear this?

>Trump’s vow to file suits in the World Trade Organization to open foreign markets to U.S.-origin goods and services and halt predatory foreign trade practices is completely inadequate. As I’ve also written, the WTO is far from a U.S.-like trade court where objective magistrates render impartial justice. It’s an anti-American kangaroo court numerically dominated by foreign trade powers whose overwhelming interest lies in keeping the U.S. market much more open to their goods and services than their markets are to U.S. exports. That’s largely why even when the United States does win WTO cases, the process takes so long that American interests have been dealt decisive setbacks.

In fact, that’s also why the Offshoring Lobby pushed so hard back in the 1990s for U.S. Entry into the WTO. They knew that it would give predatory foreign trade powers substantial legal immunity from American efforts to deal with illegal subsidization, dumping, currency manipulation, and the like – and that the factories they moved and built abroad would benefit from these market-distorting practices at the expense of domestic American producers and their workers.

In other words, Trump shouldn’t be arguing for working through the WTO. He should be promising to seek an American withdrawal.

>Trump’s related promise to file more suits against predatory foreign traders in the U.S. trade law system is sorely inadequate for three main reasons. First, as suggested above, the WTO nullifies most of America’s legal authority to use such unilateral mechanisms. Second, the domestic trade law system is almost as slow-moving as the WTO. And third, this legalistic set of procedures is by definition piecemeal and reactive. If Trump thinks that American trade law can help make the U.S. economy great again in his lifetime, he’s dreaming.

>I recognize that the steel industry has acquired iconic status in American culture and politics. It also remains incredibly important economically. But Trump’s exclusive reliance on steel’s recent woes to illustrate what’s wrong with American trade policy unfortunately reinforces the wrongheaded conventional wisdom that trade policy critics are naively obsessed with reviving so-called Rust Belt industries.

What Trump should have added is that manufacturing sectors running sizable trade deficits also include semiconductors, electro-medical devices, all categories of machine tools, farm machinery, construction equipment, ball bearings, telecommunications equipment (not including smartphones), and pharmaceuticals. Believe me, I could go on. And that’s not your classic Rust Belt stuff. Are all these domestic producers hopelessly uncompetitive, Trump should ask? Or are global trade markets unmistakably rigged even against American-made products falling into any knowledgeable definition of advanced manufacturing?

>Trump clearly felt the need to throw some red meat to traditional Republicans and conservatives by also promising to boost the productive sectors of the American economy by getting rid of “wasteful rules and regulations” and cutting taxes in order to “make America the best place in the world to start a business, hire workers, and open a factory.”

Of course, there’s an important, legitimate debate about the proper scope of regulations and the proper level of taxation for both corporations and individuals. Think though, of the outreach potential to independent and even many Democratic voters had Trump added something along these lines:

“But we also have to remember that many of our regulations also serve the vital purpose of protecting us from dangers like polluted air, water, and land; and unsafe food and workplaces. By freeing America’s domestic companies of the need to compete against rivals free to ignore these goals, we preserve regulations reflecting values we should be proud of, and ensure that we remain a genuine first world country.”

And let’s not forget arguments made in Trump’s tax plan (though in a form that’s surely vastly overstated) but neglected in this speech: All else equal, the faster the economy’s real (as opposed to bubble-ized) growth, the stronger its ability to generate the tax revenues that are both politically acceptable and needed to finance true national needs and popular national desires in a responsible way.

Again, I really do believe that this Trump speech was the best Americans have heard on trade in decades. But that bar has been abysmally low. If Trump wants to make America “Greater Than Ever Before” ensuring that his trade positions fit this description will help a lot.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: China Import Price Puzzles

Tags

China, competitiveness, currency, currency manipulation, dollar, import prices, imports, Little Murders, manufacturing, multinational companies, productivity, subsidies, technology transfer, Trade, value-added taxes, VAT, yuan, {What's Left of) Our Economy

One of my favorite literary passages of all times comes from “Little Murders.” If you’ve never seen the stage or film version, I strongly recommend both, and for me, the high point of this late-1960s Jules Feiffer 1967 black comedy about life in a rapidly deteriorating New York City comes when Detective Miles Practice exasperatedly describes his frustration at solving a massive ongoing wave of violent crime.

The 345 unsolved homicides he and his colleagues are investigating have three characteristics in common, Practice explains. “A – that they have nothing in common; B – that they have no motive; C – that, consequently, they remain unsolved.”

I’ve felt a little like Detective Practice today as I’ve tried to dig deeper than usual into this morning’s new Labor Department data on the prices of imports bought by Americans in April. And it’s not just that the figures seem to undercut an argument I’ve made consistently during the ongoing debate over U.S.-China trade policy. It’s that the differences among various industries defy anything close to easy explanation.

As many of you surely know, since early in the previous decades, Chinese government policies that determine the value of its currency, the yuan, versus that of the U.S. dollar have been major bones of contention between the two countries. Essentially, many Americans have accused Beijing of keeping the yuan artificially weak, which gives Chinese-made goods unwarranted price advantages over their U.S.-made counterparts in markets all over the world. And if Made in China goods are outselling Made in America goods for reasons having nothing to do with market forces, then American production and jobs will be penalized for reasons having nothing to do with free markets, or free trade, either.

Because this issue has loomed so large for so long, I’ve been following the import prices figure closely in order to see how the yuan’s changing value has affected the actual price of Chinese-made products in the American market. And what I’ve found indicates that, although currency values matter a lot, these prices doubtless change for a variety of other reasons, too – including other forms of Chinese government interference with trade, but not limited to such protectionism.

For example, if the Chinese are making growing quantities of relatively advanced manufactured goods and selling them to Americans, and de-emphasizing less advanced goods, then the effects of Beijing’s currency policies could be (at least partly) masked by the higher prices these more sophisticated products presumably command. And in fact, I’ve shown that precisely this shift in Chinese manufacturing and exporting has been taking place, and argued that, as a result, precisely this masking effect is influencing the prices of Chinese imports. To me, it’s strong evidence that China’s yuan is still too cheap – even though for reasons we needn’t delve into now, China is now trying to prop up the yuan’s value.

Now, however, I’m not so sure. Because the detailed, product-by-product figures kept and reported by the Labor Department show that in many cases, prices of advanced manufactured products sold by China to Americans are falling faster than the prices of less advanced goods. Moreover, the prices of many Chinese products in the U.S. market are falling more slowly than those of comparable imports from other countries – which supports the idea that Beijing’s new currency stance is harming Chinese products’ price competitiveness.

Some caveats need to be made at this point. First, the number of manufacturing industries in which direct comparisons can be made between the prices of Chinese and other imports is relatively small – because the Labor Department issues detailed data for many more U.S. imports overall than for U.S imports from China. Second, some of the missing China data concerns industries where Beijing has encouraged massive overcapacity – notably steel – and clearly helped create significant (and worrisome) deflation.

All the same, most of the statistics I’ve found are real head-scratchers. For example, since the business press has been filled in recent years with articles on strongly rising Chinese wages, it’s not entirely surprising to see that the cost of imports of Chinese garments – a labor-intensive industry – have actually increased a bit since 2012 (the earliest China-specific figures available), whereas overall garment import prices are down.

But why have the prices of Chinese-made clothing been so much stronger, and less internationally competitive, than the prices of Chinese made machinery – an admittedly broad category but one in which the output is very capital-intensive, complex, and (I thought) relatively expensive? (Think boxer shorts versus machine tools.) In fact, on the whole, the more technologically advanced a Chinese product is, the faster its price is falling and the more price competitive it is with foreign rivals.

Rapidly rising productivity could easily explain this trend for Chinese information technology products like computers and semiconductors and communications equipment. But if that’s the case, then why do goods that are less advanced but hardly primitive – like fabricated metal products and household appliances – display the opposite characteristics? This is a special puzzle given that fabricated metal products contain so much steel – which has been so rock-bottom cheap in China for so long. And why are China’s chemical products (another broad category) able to cut prices so impressively and gain on their competition in the U.S. market, but not plastics products – which are a major category within chemicals?

Some tentative conclusions and possibilities:

First, these figures are a valuable reminder that even manufacturing industries that seem closely related can have enough differences to produce widely varying results

Second, some of this variation in Chinese manufactures could reflect their positions on the government’s priorities scale. In principle, the products that perform best price-wise could be the beneficiaries of the biggest government subsidies (including value-added tax rates, which are extremely granular) and research budgets. They could also be the sectors where Beijing exerts the greatest pressure on foreign investors to transfer their best technology.

Third, since much foreign tech transfer in China is still voluntary, the price gap illustrated above also could stem at least partly from different tech transfer approaches taken by multinational companies from different countries. For example, it’s widely believed that American companies that operate in China – and which are especially active in information technology – share their know-how with Chinese partners much more freely than do firms from Japan and Germany.

Even so, however, these import price figures raise many more questions than they answer, and they seem to be telling us that all of us need to be paying a lot more attention to them.