(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Which Industries Were 2019’s Biggest U.S. Trade Winners & Losers?

Tags

Barack Obama, manufacturing, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

President Trump has set out to overhaul America’s trade policy, and RealityChek has presented abundant evidence showing that, from the proverbial 30,000-foot level and somewhat below, his years in office have seen impressive progress that’s laying the foundations for a healthier economy.

But what about the makeup of U.S. trade flows? Similar progress has been documented here in the recent leveling off of the still-enormous American trade gap in manufactured goods (despite the safety-related woes of aircraft giant and mega-exporter Boeing) and minimal growth in the Made in Washington trade deficit – the shortfall in those flows most strongly influenced by American trade policy decisions (i.e., which leave out oil and services trade).

At the same time, a detailed industry-by-industry examination of U.S. trade patterns reveals changes that have been more modest, though worth examining, especially when a reasonably obvious comparison is made with their counterparts during the last year of the Obama administration – which the President and his supporters (including me) view as a trade policy failure. Specifically, over these three years, the lists of the American industries that ran the biggest trade surpluses and deficits remained practically the same. By contrast, the lists of sectors that saw their trade balances improve or worsen to the greatest extent had almost nothing in common.

Let’s begin with one of Mr. Trump’s priority objectives – reducing the trade deficit. Despite the different look of aggregate deficits, one key measure of the industries winning and losing out most from trade looks remarkably similar last year to its appearance in the final Obama year, 2016. That’s the sectors of the U.S. economy with the biggest trade surpluses. Below are the Top 20 for 2019, in descending order. The magnitude of the 2019 surplus in value terms comes after the sector’s name, and the right-hand column shows how these industries ranked in 2016. Last year’s trade surplus champions that didn’t make the 2016 list are designated with a hyphen.

The categories come from the federal government’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which has become Washington’s predominant system for slicing and dicing the domestic economy. They represent NAICS’ most granular level of disaggregation – the sixth level. And they leave out a catchall aerospace category that includes both planes and their parts – as opposed to many other NAICS-6 categories, which present the two separately.

Leading 2019 trade surplus sectors                                  2016 rank

1. petroleum refinery products: $30.71b                               1

2. special classification goods: $26.27b                                3

3. plastics materials & resins: 18.74b                                   4

4. soybeans: $18.46b                                                            2

5. waste and scrap: $13.11b                                                 5

6. non-anthracite coal & petroleum gases: $9.27b            16

7. used or second-hand merchandise: $9.16b:                  10

8. motor vehicle bodies: $9.12b                                         7

9. corn: $7.57b                                                                   6

10. non-poultry meat products: $7.36b                            11

11. cotton: +$6.23b                                                          14

12. semiconductors: +$5.91b                                            –

13. wheat: $5.84b                                                            13

14. tree nuts: +$5.10b                                                      15

15. computer parts: +$4.76b                                             9

16. misc basic inorganic chemicals: $3.88b                     –

17. prepared or preserved poultry: $3.75b                      18

18. in-vitro diagnostic substances: $3.39b                      20

19. surface active agents: $3.23b                                    19

20. paperboard mill products: $3.12b                              –

As the table makes clear, there’s been some reshuffling in this group, but not much. Indeed, 17 of the 2016 Top 20 made the 2019 Top 20, and all of the top five in 2016 were top five in 2019, though three of these industries switched orders. And the only major ranking changes occurred in non-anthracite coal and petroleum gases (which move up six places), and in computer parts (which moved down six).

Also of note: In 2016, eight of the Top 20 trade surplus sectors were manufactures, and this number rose to only nine in 2019. So despite the Trump administration’s focus on strengthening domestic manufacturing, little change is evident from this list of leading net exporters.

Yet very different results emerge from a different measure of trade excellence – the twenty industries that have seen their trade balances improved the most between 2018 and 2019, and between 2015 and that final Obama year 2016. Here, for three reasons, I’ve limited the total number of industries I’ve examined to the hundred biggest trade surplus and trade deficit industries.

First, these sectors represent the vast bulk of U.S. goods trade. Second, they enable a filtering out of the “small numbers effect” (that is, big percentage moves that are generated when sectors with small trade flows experiencing changes that are small in absolute terms but big in relative terms). Third, including the big deficit industries enables the identification of sectors whose trade shortfalls have shrunk the most – which on in trade accounting means just as much as boosting surpluses. (These sectors are the ones marked “DF,” for “deficits fell.”)

Just as with the first table, also presented here is where 2019’s biggest trade balance improvers ranked in 2016. And the big takeaway is that overwhelmingly, they didn’t rank at all. An amazing sixteen out of twenty sectors that improved their trade balances the most last year weren’t even on this Top 20 list just three years ago.

Leading trade balance improvers 2018-19                                       2016 rank

(including percentage changes)

1. semiconductors: +196.2 percent                                                         –

2. perfumes, makeup & other toiletries: +147.4 percent                        –

3. dental laboratories products: +120.0 percent                                     –

4. non-small arms ammunition: +79.8 percent                                      6

5. dried peas & beans: +60.4 percent                                                    7

6. carbon & graphite products: +55.9 percent                                      –

7. oil & gas field machinery & equip: +49.3 percent                           –

8. animal fats, oils & byproducts: +48.9 percent                                 –

9. petrochemicals: +44.9 percent                                                         1

10. computer storage devices: +42.7 percent                                    19

11. ships: +40.2 percent                                                                      –

12. misc chemicals: +35.1 percent                                                     –

13. cheese: +34.0 percent                                                                   –

14. potatoes: +33.6 percent                                                                 –

15. jewelry & silverware: +32.1 percent (DF)                                    –

16. search, navigation, detection instruments: +31.1 percent (DF)    –

17. printed circuit assemblies: +31.6 percent (DF)                            –

18. missile & space vehicle engines & parts: +30.0 percent             –

19. motor homes: +28.0 percent                                                        –

20. specialty canned foods: +27.6 percent                                         –

But also interesting – despite the extensive turnover, for both years, 13 of the twenty top trade balance improvers were manufacturing industries.

Maybe, however, the story is significantly different on the deficit side of the trade ledger? Not meaningfully. Below is a list of the twenty American sectors with the biggest trade shortfalls in absolute terms, in descending order. The actual deficits are included, too. In the right-hand column is their ranking on a similar 2016 table. And as with the surplus table above, that catchall aerospace category is excluded.

Leading 2019 trade deficit sectors                                                 2016 rank

1. autos & light trucks: $126.60b                                                        1

2. goods returned: $91.06b                                                                 4

3. broadcast & wireless communs equip: $73.74b                             3

4. pharmaceutical preparations: $62.36b                                            5

5. computers: $59.62b                                                                        6

6. female cut & sew apparel: $42.13b                                               7

7. male cut & sew apparel: $30.97b                                                   8

8. aircraft engines & engine parts: $25.68b                                     12

9. footwear: $25.62b                                                                        10

10. misc motor vehicle parts: $23.69b                                             11

11. audio & video equip: $21.71b                                                     9

12. dolls, toys & games: $17.37b                                                    13

13. iron & steel & ferroalloy products: $17.03b                             16

14. non-diagnostic biological products: $16.97b                             –

15. printed circuit assemblies: $16.75b 1                                         4

16. motor vehicle electrical & electronic equip: $14.63b              15

17. aircraft parts & auxiliary equip: $14.02b                                 18

18. light truck & utility vehicles: $13.19                                        –

19. misc plastics products: $13.03b                                                –

20. curtains & linens: $12.18b                                                       17

In this case, 17 of the 2019 Top 20 were in the 2016 Top 20. And the order hasn’t changed much, either – except arguably in the case of aircraft engines and engine parts, iron and steel and ferroalloy products, and curtains and linens. One major change does need to be noted, though: You may have observed that the second biggest trade deficit industry in 2016 didn’t make the 2019 list at all. That sector? Crude oil and natural gas, thanks to the U.S. energy production revolution of recent years.

All the same, the 2016 and 2019 lists of biggest trade deficit industries are pretty much…all the same. They’re also both manufacturing dominated, with that super-category accounting for 19 of the Top 20 deficit sectors in 2019 and 18 in 2016.

Turn to the industries whose trade balances have worsened the most (including sectors whose surpluses have declined), and you see a substantially different 2016-2019 comparison – but one strongly resembling that between the sectors whose trade balances have improved the most in 2016 and 2019: showing big-time turnover. (As with the biggest trade balance improvers’ list, the following are drawn from the hundred biggest trade surplus and trade deficit industries.) Those sectors whose surpluses fell are designated with (SF):

Leading trade balance “worseners”                                                      2016 rank

(including percentage changes)

1. non-aluminum, non-ferrous metal refining/extruding: +74.0 percent     1

2. semiconductor machinery: +70.8 percent (SF)                                       –

3. military armored vehicles & parts: +53.9 percent (SF)                          –

4. tobacco: +51.4 percent (SF)                                                                   –

5. electricity measuring & testing instruments: +50.8 percent (SF)          –

6. construction machinery: +47.4 percent                                                10

7. misc non-ferrous secondary smelting/refining: +47.3 percent (SF)     –

8, iron ores: +45.4 percent (SF)                                                                –

9. corn: +39.2 percent (SF)                                                                       –

10. non-reinforced plastic plate & sheet: +35.3 percent (SF)                   –

11. margarine & edible fats & oils: +34.6 percent (SF)                           –

12. timber & logs: +33.4 percent (SF)                                                     –

13. mobile homes & trailers: +30.5 percent (SF)                                    –

14. missiles, space vehicles & parts: +29.8 percent (SF)                        –

15. misc electrical equip & components: +27.4 percent                         –

16. non-diagnostic biological products: +23.1 percent                           –

17. aircraft engines & engine parts: +19.8 percent                                 –

18. light trucks & utility vehicles: +19.7 percent                                   –

19. chocolate & confectionary products: +18.4 percent                         –

20. fabricated structural metals: +17.2 percent                                     12

No fewer than 18 of the 20 sectors on the 2019 list don’t appear on the 2016 list. As for the two that did, construction machinery worsened its relative performance (moving up from the tenth worst sector in this respect to the sixth worst) and fabricated structural metals improved its relative performance (moving from the twelfth worst to the twentieth worst industry).

Of modest significance, though, for manufacturing: It accounted for only 15 of these Top 20 biggest trade losers in 2019, down from 18 in 2016.

The implications seem strikingly clear – though one is much more surprising than the other. The not-so-surprising conclusion: Because the supertanker of U.S. trade flows is so big, changing it dramatically is a long-haul affair. So industries that are the biggest trade losers and winners in 2016 can be expected to hold the same positions in 2019.

But on a more dynamic basis (improving and worsening trade balances) substantial change is possible in a three-year period – both for better and for worse.

Tomorrow we’ll turn from industries’ trade balances to how well these generalizations hold for the sectors with the most and the fastest-growing exports and imports.

Those Stubborn Facts: How Protectionism Pays at the WTO

Tags

China, Those Stubborn Facts, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, World Trade Organization, WTO

Disputes brought against the United States since China joined the World Trade Organization*: 99

Share of total disputes brought to the World Trade Organization since China joined: 28.37%

Disputes brought against China since China joined the World Trade Organization: 44

Share of total disputes brought to the World Trade Organization since China joined: 12.61 percent

U.S. cumulative merchandise trade balance since China joined the World Trade Organization:** -$9.509 trillion

China cumulative merchandise trade balance since China joined the World Trade Organization: +$3.028 trillion

*December, 2001

**2002 through 2018

(Sources: “How to Revive the WTO,” by Shang-Jin Wei and Xinding Yu,” Project Syndicate, December 11, 2019, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/world-trade-organization-revive-appellate-body-by-shang-jin-wei-and-xinding-yu-2019-12; and calculated from “Net trade in goods and services (BoP, current US$) – China, United States,” DataBank, World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BN.GSR.GNFS.CD?locations=CN-US)

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Chamber’s “Trade Works” Campaign is Clearly Hoping that Trade Fakery Works

Tags

exports, imports, recovery, states, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, Trump, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is at it again: It’s launched a public relations campaign to strengthen American support for conventional trade liberalization policies (or at least to weaken support for President Trump’s increasing resort to tariffs to overhaul these policies). Its campaign focuses on how the old trade status quo was benefiting the U.S. economy. It’s using “state-by-state analysis to argue that Trump is risking a global trade war.” And as usual, it’s pretending that national and state trade flows (and their employment effects) consist of and stem only from exports.

Also as usual – there’s an excellent reason for the Chamber to resort once again to such intellectual dishonesty. Since the nation as a whole is running a huge and rising trade deficit that has cut into the subpar economic growth generated by the current expansion, it’s practically inevitable that the great majority of the fifty states have seen worsening trade balances significantly slow their recoveries as well.

And thanks to the Commerce Department, which tracks individual states’ merchandise exports and imports, it’s easy to see just how greatly the trade losers outnumber the trade winners. (State-level data on much smaller flows of services exports and imports are not available.) 

Specifically, from the year the current recovery began (2009) through last year, 26 states have seen their merchandise trade deficits increase, two have seen such trade surpluses fall, and in five, goods surpluses have turned into deficits. So in all, trade has dragged on growth during the recovery for 33 of the 50 states.

Of the 17 states that have improved their trade performances during this period, five have seen their deficits shrink, six have generated higher surpluses, and six have turned deficits into surpluses.

These data thoroughly debunk the claim made by the Chamber’s campaign that “Trade Works. Tariffs Don’t.” So it’s clear that what this pillar of the Offshoring Lobby is actually counting on is that trade fakery works.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A U.S. Trade Figures Update with a Special Focus on China & Trump “Foe” EU

Tags

Canada, China, EU, European Union, exports, goods trade, high tech goods trade, imports, manufacturing, merchandise trade, services trade, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The May U.S. trade figures are no longer exactly new, having been released July 6. But with a big round of U.S. tariffs just imposed on China, and many more possibly on the way (along with automotive trade curbs that would affect most major U.S. economic competitors), they’re still incredibly newsy. So here’s a quick rundown of some highlights closely related to recent headlines, starting with the China figures.

>The enormous American goods trade deficit with China shot up by 18.68 percent sequentially, from $27.96 billion to $33.19 billion. The May shortfall was the biggest since January ($35.95 billion) and the increase was the greatest since May, 2016 (19.49 percent).

>The widening of the trade gap was largely driven by a 14.56 percent monthly jump in U.S. merchandise imports from China, to $43.80 billion.

>That level was also the highest since January ($45.79 billion) and the increase was the biggest since March, 2015 (30.33 percent).

>U.S. goods exports to China rose on month by only 1.69 percent, to $10.61 billion.

>Year-to-date, the merchandise deficit is running 9.92 percent higher than last year’s rate – which resulted in a record $375.58 billion bilateral shortfall.

>Also, year-to-date, U.S. goods exports to China have increased by 7.79 percent, while the far larger amount of imports is up by 9.36 percent.

>The trade figures for another competitor in President Trump’s cross-hairs, the European Union (EU) tell a different story. In May, the goods trade deficit with this grouping – labeled a trade “foe” by Mr. Trump – declined by 8.57 percent, from $14.64 billion to $13.39 billion.

>U.S. merchandise exports to the EU advanced by 4.34 percent sequentially in May, to $27.97 billion, and American sales to the group have been improving steadily since November. Indeed, on a year-to-date basis, they’ve improved by a healthy 14.02 percent.

>The merchandise deficit, however, has risen by 14.77 percent year-to-date as of May, with the larger amount of imports up nearly as fast: 14.27 percent.

>The U.S. goods deficit with Canada, another country that has drawn Mr. Trump’s ire, nearly doubled on month in May, from $806 million to $1.50 billion. But because this shortfall has fallen to such low levels in recent years, largely because of reduced American energy imports, these figures now tend to be volatile.

>U.S. merchandise exports to Canada – still America’s largest single country trade partner – increased 4.42 percent on month in May, to $26.81 billion, while goods imports rose by 8.53 percent, to $28.31 billion

>But although that import figure was the highest such monthly total since December, 2014’s $28.83 billion, the year-to-date American bilateral merchandise deficit has plummeted by 40.78 percent, from $9.78 billion to $6.08 billion.

>U.S. goods exports to Canada year-to-date are up by 4.98 percent, as of May, and goods imports have risen by 6.02 percent.

>U.S. global trade flows set a series of multi-month bests and all-time records in May.

>The combined May goods and services deficit fell by 6.57 percent sequentially to $43.05 billion – the lowest such total since October, 2016’s $42.64 billion.

>The goods deficit declined by 3.77 percent on month to $65.79 billion – the lowest since last August’s $65.49 billion.

>On the services side, the May surplus of $22.74 billion bested the April result by 2.04 percent, and fell just short of the record $22.77 billion recorded in February, 2015.

>Total exports, which rose sequentially by 1.94 percent, to $215.33 billion, hit their fourth straight monthly record.

>U.S. goods exports, which increased on month by 2.62 percent, to $144.89 billion, set their third straight such record.

>U.S. services exports, which advanced by 0.56 percent, to $70.44 billion, set their 13^th straight monthly record.

>U.S. non-oil goods exports (pre-inflation) in May climbed by 2.75 percent on month, to $129.98 billion, and set their third straight monthly record.

>U.S. current dollar oil exports inched up by 0.77 percent sequentially in May, to $14.18 billion – the second best performance on record after December, 2013’s $14.27 billion.

>The immense American manufacturing trade deficit in May continued its march toward the $1 trillion-dollar annual mark, and a new yearly record.

>The May manufacturing trade deficit totaled $85.05 billion – its fourth all-time highest, and an increase of 8.95 percent sequentially.

>Manufactures exports improved on month by 4.89 percent, from $96.72 billion to $101.45 billion. But the much greater amount of manufactures imports increased even more – by 6.71 percent, from $174.79 billion to $186.50 billion.

>Year-to-date, the manufacturing trade shortfall reached $397.48 billion in May – 11.89 percent higher than the comparable level in 2017, when the gap finished the year at $929.14 billion.

>Year-to-date manufacturing exports have increased by 7.38 percent, but imports are 9.27 percent higher.

>America’s trade deficit in advanced technology products also keeps heading to a new annual record.

>On month, the chronic shortfall in this category rose by 8.44 percent, to $10.32 billion.

>That increase brought the year-to-date deficit to $45.37 billion –32.62 percent higher than the comparable total last year, when this full-year trade gap reached $110.93 billion.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Some Surprising New Data on Manufacturing and Trade

Tags

China, IMF, International Monetary Fund, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, Nicholas Lardy, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, World Bank, World Economic Outlook, {What's Left of) Our Economy

That was some chart in this week’s newest International Monetary Fund (IMF) update on the world economy on how different countries (including the United States) have fared when it comes to increasing or maintaining their manufacturing employment and their manufacturing output. (The detail in the below reproduction is tough to see, but for the original, see p. 5 in the third chapter of the Fund’s April World Economic Outlook.) 

 

Looking at performance for 20 high-income countries and 20 low-income countries, it makes clear that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, there’s nothing unusual about national economies boosting manufacturing jobs as a share of total jobs, and manufacturing output as a share of total output, at the same time. So it’s a powerful retort to claims from American globalization cheerleaders that all over the world, in rich and poor countries alike, both manufacturing indicators are bound to fall in relative terms as economies inevitably evolve in more services-oriented directions.

And at the very least, it calls into question the notion that trade balances in manufacturing have little or nothing to do job loss in the sector in particular. For example, according to the chart, 22 of the 40 countries examined have boosted manufacturing as a share of their employment and their real value-added (a measure of output) from 1960 through 2015. And 11 of these were high-income countries, where the conventional wisdom says manufacturing’s economic importance is likeliest to shrink over any significant time frame.

Of these 22 countries, 17 ran surpluses in their combined goods and services trade in 2015. And nine were high-income countries.

Not that trade surpluses are automatic indicators of economic success: This group does include economically stagnant Italy as well as economically collapsing Venezuela. Spain, which experienced a terrible stretch during the last recession, is on this list, too – although it’s been a strong grower more recently. And there’s one country whose failure to qualify sure surprised me: Germany. Nonetheless, the countries that have excelled at manufacturing during this period also include major success stories like Chile, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia, and of course China (along with Japan, which is currently in the midst of its best growth stretch in nearly three decades).

Of course, the 1960-2015 time frame is still problematic at best, especially for China – since in 1960 it was still being run by leaders enamored with ideas like making steel in peasants’ backyard furnaces. But more recent comparisons between China and the United States look much more instructive – and supportive of the idea that a strong manufacturing trade performance is a great way to maintain robust manufacturing employment and production – and of its converse.

Let’s examine the post-2002 period – with the baseline chosen because that’s the year China actually joined the World Trade Organization, and began receiving WTO-style protection for its predatory, surplus-building trade practices. And for manufacturing output, let’s use pre-inflation value-added, since I wasn’t able to find inflation-adjusted data for China.

According to World Bank figures, manufacturing by this measure dipped from 31.06 percent of China’s economy in 2002 to 29.38 percent – a 5.72 percent decline. For the United States, between 2002 and 2015 manufacturing value-added as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) fell from 13.74 percent to 12.27 percent. That 10.70 drop-off was nearly twice that of China.

As for employment, Sinologist Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (and no hardliner on China) has compiled Chinese statistics dating from 2003, and covering employment in the country’s cities. They show that manufacturing jobs as a share of this China total rose from 15 percent that year to 20 percent in 2014. In the United States during those years, manufacturing employment as a share of total non-farm jobs (the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ American jobs universe), dropped from 11.91 percent to 8.76 percent.

And nowhere have the manufacturing differences between the two economies been greater than in trade flows. For the first year of its WTO membership, China’s goods and services trade surplus (which was mainly in manufacturing) was $30.35 billion. By 2014, it was ballooned to $382 billion. During this period, the American manufacturing trade deficit shot up by just under 74 percent – from $362.64 billion to $629.53 billion.

So the new IMF chart (and related data) by no means ends the debate over whether trade balances impact national manufacturing employment and output. But if I was a globalization cheerleader, I’d sure hope they didn’t attract too much attention.

(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.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Trade Success Increasingly Depends on Raw Materials

Tags

commodities, comparative advantage, exports, manufacturing, net exports, raw materials, Trade, trade surpluses, {What's Left of) Our Economy

History teaches pretty clearly that relying heavily on exports of raw materials isn’t a great formula for long-term national economic success. That’s one big reason that the release last week of the full-year 2017 U.S. trade statistics tells such a depressing story. Because that’s exactly what the United States has been increasingly engaged in.

The best measure of such trade performance is net exports, or trade surpluses. These data show which goods and services a country sells overseas most proficiently – and therefore which goods and services they’re likely to produce most successfully. Were this not the case, trade could not possibly – as the prevailing comparative advantage theory holds – foster the most efficient possible global division of labor.

And according to the new annual trade statistics, America’s greatest comparative advantage is in commodities. Here’s a list of the top ten trade surpluses run in goods by the United States in 2017, and their magnitude. (For the wonky, these are categories from the six-digit level of the North American Industry Classification Series (NAICS) – the main system now used by the U.S. government for slicing and dicing the national economy. The six-digit level is the one that does the best job of distinguishing between final products and their parts and components – which is critical given how much American and global trade now takes place in the latter, due to the development of global supply chains.)

1. Petroleum refinery products: $34.39 billion

2. Special classification provisions: $23.50 billion

3. Soybeans: $21.25 billion

4. Plastics materials and resins: $15.31 billion

5. Liquid natural gas: $14.60 billion

6. Waste and scrap: $12.19 billion

7. Non-anthracite coal & petroleum gases: $9.22 billion

8. Motor vehicle bodies: $9.18 billion

9. Corn: $8.99 billion

10: Non-poultry meat: $7.38 billion

Six of these ten are commodities, and “special classification provisions” – which are mainly “exports of articles imported for repairs etc.; imports of articles exported and returned, unadvanced; imports of animals exported and returned” – might as well be.

To be sure, aerospace products, especially commercial aircraft, should be at or near the top of this list. But because Boeing doesn’t want final products and parts and components broken out in trade data, it’s no longer possible to find apples-to-apples figures for these products. And even their inclusion would produce a raw materials-heavy list.

Here’s the list of the top ten trade surplus items ten years ago, in 2007 (when these disaggregated aerospace numbers were still reported publicly):

1. Aircraft: $39.54 billion

2. Semiconductors & related devices: $22.71 billion

3. Waste and scrap: $17.69 billion

4. Plastics materials and resins: $15.32 billion

5. Aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment: $13.46 billion

6. Soybeans: $9.92 billion

7. Special classification provisions: $9.84 billion

8. Corn: $9.84 billion

9. Miscellaneous basic organic chemicals: $9.70 billion

10. Oil and gas field machinery & equipment: $8.54 billion

Only three of the sectors on this list are commodity sectors, and adding the special classifications trade surplus makes four of ten low value sectors.   

Here’s another way to look at this comparison. In 2007, the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit (the flip side of course of the above surpluses) accounted for 76.99 percent of the overall merchandise deficit on a Census basis. The 2017 figure? 116.50 percent.

There’s a first time for everything, and maybe the United States will prove the exception to this rule about the value of manufactures versus commodities trade. Maybe what’s decisively important that two of the new commodities items on the 2017 list were energy items (liquid natural gas and non-anthracite coal and petroleum gases). But with energy-heavy countries like Saudi Arabia frantically trying to diversify their economies, that seems doubtful. As to the question of a comparative advantage in commodities providing a durable foundation for American prosperity – the burden of proof surely remains with the optimists.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: A Narrow-Minded Wake-Up Call on China’s Tech Drive

Tags

artificial intelligence, Barack Obama, budget, China, mercantilism, National Science Foundation, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, research and development, technology, technology transfer, Trade, trade surpluses, Trump

“#SMH” (Shaking My Head) is one of my favorite Twitter hashtags, and it’s the perfect reaction to a new post on FOREIGNPOLICY.com on the growing technological challenge being posed to the United States by China, and on its frightening national security implications. The post has me shaking my head, and should have you shaking yours, because for all the useful information it contains on this critical subject, it completely misses the much bigger, much more important picture. And it misses it because the authors are so transparently determined to lionize former President Obama’s record in this regard, and vilify President Trump’s – though few of the facts warrant this conclusion.

The post is useful mainly for calling attention to China’s intensifying effort to establish global superiority in artificial intelligence, and to the Trump administration’s budget policies, which look oblivious to China’s efforts because they don’t provide adequate resources for federal research efforts capable of keeping the United States ahead.

I say “look” because the budget situation may not be as dire as strongly suggested by the authors. Specifically, it’s true that the administration has proposed cutting funding for the National Science Foundation’s artificial intelligence programs by 10 percent. At the same time, as made clear by the source they relied on, “the proposed budget does call for more spending on defense research and some supercomputing.”

Much more misleading is the post’s portrayal of the Obama administration as nothing less than Churchillian in sounding the tocsin. After all, the Obama reports the authors cite as evidence of his foresight on the subject came out at the very end of his presidency. At least as important, they gloss over major non-budgetary developments crucial to understanding China’s progress.

As they themselves admit, for instance, Chinese tech companies have established presences in Silicon Valley because they believe that “by rotating Chinese staff to Silicon Valley and American staff to Chinese campuses, they can accelerate the timeline for reaching parity with the United States in AI technology and depth of talent.” Under whose administration do the authors believe this practice started? And why do they think the Chinese were confident they were so free to proceed?

Also completely ignored: Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama did absolutely nothing as American companies continued their longstanding efforts to transfer advanced technologies to Chinese partners voluntarily, or were forced to share this knowhow due to Chinese threats to shut them out of its market. Nor did he move to prevent these firms from investing in Chinese companies working on tech products and services with clear defense implications, or to help them cope with Beijing’s demands that they pony up or else.

And let’s not forget: The Obama administration made only the most token efforts to combat the predatory Chinese practices that enabled Beijing to amass immense trade surpluses with the United States; therefore to further fuel the growth of its market and make it that much more difficult for American companies to resist tech extortion demands; and to finance its own multi-billion technology development efforts with these handsome trade profits. Indeed, Mr. Obama staunchly opposed Congressional efforts to punish China for its most important mercantile policy:  currency manipulation.  

So I share the authors’ view that federal research and development efforts have been crucial to establishing America’s intertwined global technology and military leadership, and their hope that President Trump will reject the conservative anti-government dogma that justifies virtually every type of budget cut outside traditional defense or law enforcement spending. But the idea that America’s approach to the Chinese tech challenged was remotely up to snuff before Mr. Trump’s election not only fails the test of historical accuracy. It has blinded them to all the other policy changes needed to ensure that the United States stays Number One.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Mixed Results from a Deep, Dynamic Dive into U.S.-China Trade Figures

Tags

advanced manufacturing, China, commodities, exports, high value manufacturing, imports, manufacturing, Trade, trade balances, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, {What's Left of) Our Economy

On Tuesday, RealityChek performed its first deep dive into the U.S.-China trade figures for the first half of 2017, and how they compare with the performance of the January-to-June, 2016 period. Today. It goes dynamic, looking through that same, detailed industry-by-industry lens which sectors have seen the biggest improvements and worst deteriorations in their exports to and imports from China, and in their trade balances with the PRC.

The same technical considerations that applied to Tuesday’s static figures apply to those below. The categories presented are from the federal government’s prime system for slicing and dicing the U.S. economy: the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). And the level of detail is NAICS’ most granular – the six-digit level. It’s especially revealing because it does the best job of distinguishing between finished goods and parts and components and other inputs for these goods – which matters greatly because so much international trade is conducted in these intermediates. Because of data limitations, however, the aerospace results shown below are five-digit statistics, which combine finished goods and their parts and components.

In addition, because services trade statistics come out so much later than goods trade statistics, only the latter are presented here.

Finally, because today’s emphasis is on rates of change, I’ve confined my research to the top 50 industries for all the metrics examined below, in order to prevent the results from being distorted by big percentage increases or decreases for sectors with very low export, import, and trade balance numbers. Fortunately, because U.S. trade is so highly concentrated, the top 50 lists are highly representative of the nation’s trade as a whole.

To begin, here are the fastest growing U.S. merchandise exports to China between the first half of last year and the first half of this year:

1. Crude oil & natural gas: +3,250.25 percent

2. Wheat: +251.29 percent

3. Primary smelted non-ferrous metals: +194.76 percent

4. Cotton: +149.26 percent

5. Miscellaneous engine equipment: +72.10 percent

6. Liquid natural gas: +66.23 percent

7. Petroleum refinery products: +58.41 percent

8. Motor vehicle transmission & power train parts: +52.84

9. Plastics and rubber industry machinery: +45.41 percent

10. Pharmaceuticals: +45.25 percent

Although four of the ten items are high-value manufactures, which generate outsized benefits for the American economy in terms of high wage job creation, productivity growth, and innovation, they dominate the bottom of this list. And their growth rates are considerably lower than those for the commodities and low-value products so prominent at the top of the list.

Encouragingly, though, the China list is a higher-value list than that for U.S. merchandise exports as a whole (presented right below). And by and large, the advance manufactures sectors above are increasing their exports to China much faster than the leaders worldwide are increasing their exports globally.

1. Non-anthracite coal & petroleum gases: +180.9 percent

2. Crude oil & natural gas: +109.0 percent

3. Cotton: +89.9 percent

4. Liquid natural gas: +62.4 percent

5. Semiconductor manufacturing equipment: +58.2 percent

6. Primary smelted non-ferrous metals: +54.0 percent

7. Soybeans: +27.6 percent

8. Petroleum refinery products: +26.1 percent

9. Motor vehicle engines & engine parts: +19.2 percent

10. Corn: +18.7 percent

Now for the goods categories that performed worst in boosting their exports to China:

1. Industrial valves: -32.46 percent

2. Miscellaneous grains: -30.76 percent

3. Broadcast & wireless communications equipment: -20.89 percent

4. Electricity measuring & testing instruments: -20.48 percent

5. Telecomms equipment: -17.58 percent

7. Aerospace: -10.74 percent

8. Photo films, plates, paper & chemicals: -7.9 percent

9. Irradiation apparatus: -4.87 percent

10. Semiconductors & related devices: -2.67 percent

Worrisomely, this list is completely dominated by advanced manufactures. What about the worst performing U.S. global export sectors?  Here they are:

1. Medicinal & botanical drugs & vitamins: -25.4 percent

2. Turbines & turbine generator sets: -15.1 percent

3. Computer parts: -9.4 percent

4. Autos and light trucks: -8.3 percent

5. Telecomms equipment: -6.6 percent

6. Electricity measuring & test instruments: -5.9 percent

7. Aerospace: -4.0 percent (5-digit, due to reporting limits)

7. Surgical and medical instruments: -1.1 percent

8. Electro-medical apparatus: -0.9 percent

9. Industrial valves: -0.1 percent

9. Computers: -0.1 percent

10. Surgical appliances & supplies: +0.2 percent

10. Analytical laboratory instruments: +0.2 percent

There’s considerable overlap between this list and the China list. But whereas the China export winners generally are increasing their sales to China much faster than the best global export performers are increasing their worldwide sales, the biggest China export losers are seeing bigger sales declines than the biggest worldwide export losers.

Next let’s look at those merchandise sectors whose trade balances with China improved the most from January-June, 2016 to January-June, 2017. These trade balance figures matter decisively, of course, because standard economic theory holds that countries that trade products most successfully will become the countries that make these products most successfully. That’s how trade is supposed to create the most efficient possible global patterns of production. In this list, the industries marked with asterisks are those whose trade deficit with China decreased:

1. Semiconductors & related devices: $190 million deficit to $615 million surplus

2. Crude oil & natural gas: +3,250.38 percent

3. Non-anthracite coal & petroleum gases: 1,537.71 percent

4. Niscellaneous metal ores: +807.54 percent

5. Smelted non-ferrous metals: +519.07 percent

6. Wheat: +251.43 percent

7. Cotton: +149.26 percent

8. Treated wood products: +139.62 percent

9. Miscellaneous women & girls’ outerwear: +131.72 percent*

10. Heavy-duty trucks & chassis: +105.11 percent

Here are the goods sectors that have improved their global trade balances the most on a year-to-date basis:

1. Primary smelted non-ferrous metals: $5.00 billion deficit to $0.76 billion surplus

2. Relays and industrial controls: $1.27 billion deficit to $2.26 billion surplus

3. Semiconductors: $1.48 billion deficit to $1.01 billion surplus

4. Non-costume jewelry: +574.44 percent

5. Drawn/rolled/extruded miscellaneous non-ferrous metals: +305.69 percent

6. Miscellaneous basic inorganic chemicals: +300.00 percent

7. Non-anthracite coal and petroleum gases: +224.29 percent

8. Medicinal and botanical drugs and vitamins: +104.35 percent

9. Cotton: +91.09 percent

10. Semiconductor manufacturing equipment: +64.82 percent

Both lists are pretty evenly split between higher value and lower value sectors, which looks like a wash for America’s global competitiveness.

The list of America’s fastest growing goods imports from China features mostly manufactured products as well, but few would be characterized as cutting edge:

1. Switchgear & switchboard apparatus: +278.27 percent

2. Printed circuit assemblies: +49.98 percent

3. Aluminum sheet, plates, and foils: +39.64 percent

4. Goods returned from Canada: +28.75 percent

5. Broadcast & wireless communications equipment: +26.74 percent

6. Miscellaneous basic organic chemicals: +23.42 percent

7. Miscellaneous special classification provisions: +22.62 percent

8. Lighting equipment: +18.83 percent

9. Telecomms equipment: +18.20 percent

10. Miscellaneous manufactures: +16.85 percent

And here’s the global counterpart of this list:

1. Switchgear and switchboard apparatus: +174.3 percent

2. Crude oil and natural gas: +53.7 percent

3. Printed circuit assemblies: +44.2 percent

4. Iron and steel: +41.3 percent

5. Primary aluminum: +38.6 percent

6. Non-diagnostic biological products: +29.4 percent

7. Petroleum refinery products: +22.2 percent

8. Miscellaneous non-citrus fruits: +20.8 percent

9. Motors and generators: +13.7 percent

10. Lighting equipment: +12.7 percent

10. Surgical appliances and supplies: +12.7 percent

According to my count, both lists are comprised mainly of high-value products (six for the China imports and seven for the global imports). More important, both import lists contain more high value products than the lists of fastest-growing American exports to China and worldwide.

Interestingly, the list of sectors where imports from China have fallen fastest contains lots of low-value goods, along with electronics ranging from consumer sectors to semiconductors. Moreover, in every one of the sectors, these imports from China have fallen faster than U.S. imports worldwide (indicated inside parentheses), strongly indicating that America-based businesses have been changing their sourcing practices.:

1. Miscellaneous women & girls’ outerwear: -56.72 percent (-51.5 percent)

2. Tires & tire parts: -30.04 percent (-0.9 percent)

3. Semiconductors & related devices: -29.28 percent (-6.4 percent)

4. Computer parts: -19.17 percent (-12.3 percent)

5. Women & girls blouses & shirts: -19.02 percent (-12.1 percent)

6. Audio & video equipment: -14.95 percent (-5.3 percent)

7. Computer storage devices: -12.31 percent (-3.1 percent)

8. Miscellaneous footwear: -8.24 percent (-4.9 percent)

9. Women & girls’ dresses: -6.71 percent (-1.9 percent)

10. Men’s footwear (non-athletic): -4.45 percent (-0.5 percent)

How does this list compare with that of those U.S. global goods imports with the slowest growth rates between the first six months of last year and the first six months of this year? Here’s that list:

1. Medicinal and botanical drugs and vitamins: -39.4 percent

2. Computer parts: -12.3 percent

3. Women’s and girls’ blouses/shirts: -12.1 percent

4. Primary smelted non-ferrous metals: -8.8 percent

5. Men’s and boys non-work shirt shirts: -8.3 percent

6. Non-costume jewelry: -6.7 percent

7. Semiconductors and related devices: -6.4 percent

8. Audio and video equipment: -5.3 percent

9. Jewelers materials/lapidary work: -4.1 percent

10. Aerospace products: -3.4 percent

Both lists look like oddly mixed bags. But whereas the China list contains just one industry widely considered to be crucial to America’s economic future, along with its national security (semiconductors), the global list includes aerospace along with semiconductors.

Finally, where have America’s fastest-growing merchandise trade deficits with China been? The list below shows a highly diverse mix of industries. The asterisked sectors are those in which trade surpluses have decreased:

1. Switchgear & switchboard apparatus: +365.30 percent

2. Malt & beer: +80.29 percent*

3. Electricity measuring & testing instruments: +71.39 percent*

4. Primary smelted & refined copper: +56.71 percent*

5. Printed circuit assemblies: +49.75 percent

6. Industrial valves: +43.72 percent

7. Plastic floor coverings: +42.55 percent

8. Miscellaneous grains: +30.82 percent

9. Broadcast & wireless communications equipment: +29.14 percent

10. Goods returned from Canada: +28.75 percent

In terms of manufacturing, and advanced manufacturing, sectors versus lower-value sectors, this China list looks slightly less worrisome in competitiveness terms than the global list below:

1. Non-diagnostic biological products: +856.00 percent.

2. Switchboard and switchgear apparatus: +437.35 percent

3. Oil and gas field machinery and equipment: +130.00 percent

4. Iron and steel: +76.25 percent

5. Surgical appliances and supplies: +71.55 percent

6. Printed circuit assemblies: +47.08 percent

7. Crude oil and natural gas: +45.30 percent

8. Primary aluminum: +42.73 percent

9. Turbines and turbine generator sets: +39.46 percent

10. Copper and nickel ores: +35.96 percent

Needless to say, over longer periods of time, China has significantly closed the competitiveness gap with the United States, and has done so faster than the rest of the world. Over the last year, however, these trade data indicate that China has gained little, if any, ground, by either measure. Holding the competitiveness line, vis-a-vis China or vis-a-vis other trade competitors, is certainly a better performance than the United States generally has registered recently. But it’s doubtful whether many Americans would agree that it’s good enough.    

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: NAFTA’s Been a Bust for U.S. Agriculture

Tags

Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, agriculture, Canada, Daryll E. Ray, free trade agreements, Harwood D. Schaffer, Mexico, NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, University of Tennessee, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Few beliefs about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are more solidly entrenched than the conviction that the deal has been a slam dunk winner for American farmers. Perhaps the most important believer now? President Trump. Last spring, he acknowledged that he shelved his plan to scrap the agreement after his Agriculture Secretary showed him data indicating that an American withdrawal would hammer many of the states and counties that voted him into the White House.

There’s just one major problem – the data say otherwise. Indeed, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s invaluable Trade Dataweb interactive database, American agriculture runs a sizable trade deficit with Canada and Mexico combined, and the gap has ballooned during the deal’s lifetime. Moreover, the statistics make clear that Washington’s trade policies overall have done nothing to bolster the U.S. farm sector’s international fortunes – at best.

The best apples-to-apples (no pun intended!) data date from 1997 – when the U.S. government began using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as its main tool for slicing and dicing the American economy analytically. And although NAFTA went into effect at the beginning of 1994, the post-1997 figures represent a nearly complete data set.

In 1997, U.S. agriculture ran a trade deficit with its NAFTA partners of just under $877 million. By last year, the shortfall had swollen to nearly $6.77 billion. Mexico has been the big problem; during this period, American farm trade across the southern border deterioriated from a surplus of just under $353 million to a deficit of more $5.83 billion. The U.S. agriculture trade performance with Canada has actually improved, with its deficit shrinking from 1997 to 2016 from $1.22 billion to $940 million. Still, American agriculture is in deficit with its northern neighbor all the same.

But maybe as bad as these numbers are, American farm trade under NAFTA has fared better than American farm trade globally? Unfortunately, there’s no evidence for that proposition, either. Between 1997 and 2016, the U.S. worldwide agriculture trade balance worsened also. But it actually worsened less – with a surplus that shrank from $15.79 billion to $10.79 billion – than the balance with the NAFTA partners.

Surely, however, America’s other free trade agreements have more than compensated for the NAFTA-related losses? If only. According to the Trade Dataweb, in 1997, the United States ran a trade deficit with these countries of $1.99 billion. By 2016, this figure had soared to $8.91 billion. That’s about as bad a record as NAFTA farm trade has compiled.

Of course, American agriculture is a large sector of the economy. (Although it’s not that large: In current dollar value-added terms, it only represented 0.86 percent of the gross domestic product in 2016. Manufacturing, by contrast, comprised 11.71 percent.) Moreover, trade performance has varied greatly by specific crop or product.

For example, between 1997 and 2016, the American corn trade surplus with Mexico skyrocketed more than seven-fold, to just under $2.60 billion. The soybean surplus jumped nearly ten-fold, to $1.02 billion. And major gains have also been recorded in non-poultry meat, poultry, wheat, dried and condensed dairy products, and many other sectors. With Canada, the big U.S. agriculture winners have been mainly fruits and vegetables, as well as wines and spirits.

The big agriculture losers in Mexico trade have been – interestingly – fruits and vegetables, along with liquor and beer. With Canada, sectors with big or big and rapidly rising surpluses have been led by miscellaneous oil seeds products where the deficit has soared more than seven-fold, to $2.27 billion), followed by fish of all kinds (where the trade gap has more than tripled, to $1.34 billion), cattle, and frozen fruits, juices, and vegetables.

Overall, though, the message sent by the data could not be clearer: The idea that NAFTA has been a bonanza for U.S. agriculture needs to be put out to pasture. And far from adopting a “don’t rock the boat” posture, it’s high time for the Trump administration to start identifying fixes.

P.S. I was first alerted to these adverse trends in U.S. farm trade by the excellent research of Harwood D. Schaffer and Daryll E. Ray of the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center at the University of Tennessee.