(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The New Manufacturing Output Data Belie Tariff Fear-Mongering Yet Again

Tags

aluminum, China, Federal Reserve, imports, industrial production, inflation-adjusted growth, manufacturing, metals, metals-using industries, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Tariff fear-mongers must have felt a shiver of excitement when today’s new industrial production report came out from the Federal Reserve. For the results showed the inflation-adjusted manufacturing output shrank in January by 0.90 percent – the third sequential decline since the first Trump administration metals tariffs went into effect, and the second since the first round of its China tariffs went into effect. Surely these figures made clear that their claims of the levies hurting American manufacturing were finally coming true! Even better, from their standpoint, revisions were slightly negative.

What a shame to report then that an examination of those always crucial internals demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the trade curbs have had nothing to do with any trouble industry may (or may not) be running into. The evidence? The continuing excellent results registered by metals-using industries, and mixed figures for the much smaller number of sectors where the impact of the first China tariffs (whose first full month was only last August) can reliably be measured.

Here are the changes in real production for the major metals-using industries starting with April – the first full month during which these sectors had to deal with the levies. The table shows the previously reported data for December, the new December data, and the January figures. (All these statistics, it should be noted, are still preliminary.) And they would challenge even the cleverest D.C.-based spin-meister to construct a narrative supporting the popular Twitter hashtag #TariffsHurt:

                                                         old thru Dec.      new thru Dec.       thru Jan.

overall manufacturing:                   +2.02 percent      +2.11 percent   +1.20 percent

durables manufacturing:                +3.31 percent      +3.45 percent   +1.65 percent

fabricated metals products:            +2.05 percent      +2.82 percent   +3.19 percent

machinery:                                     +4.93 percent      +4.38 percent   +3.87 percent

automotive:                                    +3.36 percent      +3.93 percent    -5.18 percent

major appliances:                           +0.08 percent      +3.13 percent    -2.87 percent

aircraft and parts:                           +6.80 percent      +6.14 percent   +6.35 percent

As has been the case almost consistently since the trade curbs on steel and aluminum went into effect, most of the industries relying especially heavily on these metals have actually out-performed the rest of manufacturing. And the struggles indicated here of sectors like automotive and major appliances sure spring from developments distinctive to those sectors – in automotive, major recent volatility (which has also led to major recent revisions) and in appliances, a separate set of levies on large household laundry machines that went into effect in February. The above figures, moreover, even point to volatility in appliance production.

It’s more difficult to gauge the impact of the China tariffs because the first (relatively minor) tranche has been in effect for a much shorter period, and because the levies were based on a system for classifying manufacturing that’s different from the system used in the Fed’s industrial production reports (as well as most major federal government data). So matching up industries is a daunting task, and the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that even the short list of sectors I presented last month for the December industrial production report contained too many industries where the match-up simply wasn’t close enough to be useful.

Below, therefore, are the only the sectors for which I think it’s possible to draw any firm conclusions, along with the total manufacturing results as a control figure. This highly limited sample shows the latest after-inflation growth rates from August (again, the first full months the first China tariffs were in effect) through December, and through January. And the only consistent trend visible here is volatility.

                                                                       Aug.-Dec.                    Aug.-Jan.

overall manufacturing:                              +1.26 percent              +0.36 percent

ball bearings:                                             +0.02 percent               -0.09 percent

industrial heating equipment:                    +5.19 percent              -3.86 percent

farm machinery and equipment:                +2.50 percent              +9.12 percent

As the next few months pass, it will be possible to examine usefully the China tariffs’ impact on more and more manufacturing sectors. To date, however, the grade is “incomplete” (at best). As for the effects of the steel tariffs, though, isn’t it time to consider putting that #TariffsHurt hashtag way out to pasture?

Advertisements

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Tariffs-Led Inflation, Where are You?

Tags

aluminum, China, consumer price index, CPI, inflation, Labor Department, metals, metals-using industries, producer prices, steel, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you’re a baby-boomer or a fan of old sitcoms, you know the show Car 54, Where Are You? It came to mind as I was examining the new consumer price inflation data that came out of the Labor Department this morning. Because these consumer price index (CPI) should make the country’s tariff-mageddon-mongers ask, in an equally plaintive tone, “Tariffs-led inflation where are you?” That is, the results at best offer scarcely any evidence that the Trump trade levies are eating away much at American shoppers’ buying power.

As usual, let’s first look over the statistics for metals-using industries, because they’ve been dealing with tariffs on steel and aluminum since late March, when they were first imposed. The table below compares price changes for their products with price changes for overall “core inflation” (which excludes food and energy prices, supposedly because they’re volatile for reasons that have little to do with whatever overall upward or downward general pricing pressures are shaping the economy). For good measure, I’ve included related products in an effort to distinguish between price changes due to fluctuating metals costs, and price changes due to costs of other materials or substances in the product in question – e.g., fresh produce and canned produce.

And as RealityChek regulars will notice, I’ve not only included autos and parts here, but added appliances and some other metals-using goods.

As for the dates, they cover the latest monthly price changes (through January), the changes from April (the metals tariffs’ first full month) through January, the year-on-year changes for April, and the year-on-year changes for January. The last two are probably the best measures of whether the impact of the trade curbs has been intensifying – for better or worse.

                                      Dec.-Jan.       Since April         y/y April           y/y Jan.

core CPI:                  +0.24 percent   +1.67 percent   +2.12 percent   +2.15 percent

fresh fruits                 -0.19 percent   +0.07 percent   -0.43 percent   +1.25 percent

& vegs:

fresh fruits:                +1.14 percent   -0.28 percent   +1.38 percent   -0.74 percent

fresh vegetables:         -1.66 percent  +3.01 percent    -2.50 percent  +3.64 percent

processed fruits           -0.88 percent   -0.64 percent   -1.29 percent    -0.46 percent

& vegs:

canned fruits:              -0.05 percent   +0.94 percent   -0.14 percent   +0.70 percent

& vegs:

canned fruits:              -1.59 percent    -0.56 percent    -1.60 percent   +0.35 percent

canned vegs:              +0.45 percent    +1.44 percent  +1.00 percent   +1.11 percent

soups:                         +0.34 percent    +0.80 percent   -0.38 percent   -0.81 percent

malt beverages           +0.07 percent    +1.66 percent  +0.84 percent  +2.23 percent

at home:

alcoholic                      -0.04 percent    +1.34 percent  +2.17 percent  +2.25 percent

beverages away:

non-frozen, non-         +1.32 percent    +2.45 percent   -0.52 percent  +1.80 percent

-carbonated non-

alcoholic rinks:

carbonated drinks:       +2.08 percent   +4.92 percent  +0.04 percent  +5.53 percent

juices & non-               +1.84 percent   +3.39 percent   -0.26 percent  +3.31 percent

alcoholic drinks:

new cars & trucks:       +0.22 percent   +0.93 percent   -1.61 percent +0.06 percent

motor vehicle               +0.33 percent   +1.92 percent   -0.74 percent +2.12 percent

parts:

appliances:                   +1.36 percent   +4.56 percent   +0.27 percent +6.43 percent

major appliances:         +0.99 percent  +7.47 percent  +1.55 percent  +9.66 percent

non-electric                  +0.67 percent   -0.84 percent   -1.57 percent  +3.59 percent

cookware & tableware:

tools, hardware,            +0.98 percent  +0.77 percent  +0.19 percent  +1.57 percent

outdoor equipment:

The two sets of year-on-year figures do reveal some evidence of hotter inflation in metals-using products between April and January. Also apparent, however, is accelerating inflation in several of the non-canned versions of these products. As has been the case in previous months, prices change for all sorts of reasons; tariffs are only one and nothing indicates that, generally speaking, they stand out.

The evidence is more mixed for other food sectors that offer lots of canned products, like soups and beverages. The trouble is, they also offer lots of products in other kinds of containers or packages. So tariff alarmists can point to the beverages as examples of prices rising at a faster annual pace since the metals levies were imposed. But when it comes to soup, prices have been falling at a faster pace.

Moreover, if the metals tariffs have been so important, why is January year-on-year inflation for all three of the canned products so much lower than January year-on-year overall core inflation?

Moving away from foods, faster inflation can also be seen in automotive products, appliances, cookware and tableware, and tools and hardware. But as with some of the food categories, the January-January inflation rate for the tools section is below that for the economy’s “core” overall, and appliance prices also have been affected by a separate set of tariffs slapped on large household laundry machines last February. So consumer prices are still rising strongly for these goods, although it’s hard to see why year-old washing machine tariffs or ten-month old metals tariffs would be major factors behind the big December-January increases shown above.

In recent previous posts on consumer price data and the Trump tariffs, I’ve been providing information on products that will be affected by levies on imports from China. But the more I think about it, the less confident I am that the effects can be accurately gauged at this point. For one, the first full month of tariffs on goods from China came in August. The amount was relatively small ($34 billion). The first full tariff month for another $16 billion worth of Chinese import categories came in September, but none of the products in either tranche belonged in the consumer categories. (Because they were producer goods – the kinds of parts, components, and materials that go into consumer and other products –  confident about measuring their effect on U.S. producer prices – the next set of which come out tomorrow.)

A major set of tariffs containing many consumer goods levies was announced in mid-September, but they only went into effect late that month, so only four months worth of data for those products is available. And plaguing analysis of any of these price statistics, they’re issued using a classification system that’s different from that used in the list of tariff-ed Chinese goods. In a fair number of cases they line up; in most cases, they don’t, and finding satisfactory matches is challenging.

So as I see it, more patience is needed before a useful verdict on the China tariffs can be delivered. But metals tariff-led inflation clearly remains mythical – which of course only strengthens the case for President Trump’s determination to overhaul American trade policy.

Following Up: Sign the Deal – then Seize the Border Security Initiative

Tags

border security, border wall, Congress, crime, criminal aliens, Defense Department, Democrats, detention, Following Up, government shutdown, ICE, illegal aliens, Immigration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, national emergency, shutdown, Trump

From what’s known of it, I’m as angry about the border security deal reached last night by Congressional negotiators to avert a new partial federal government shutdown as much as any immigration realist and/or supporter of President Trump. Even so, I would urge the President to sign it. (If he can win a few small improvements over the next day or two, as he’s just suggested he’ll seek, fine – but nothing achievable is worth sinking the agreement.) Then I’d recommend that he move to keep his promise that “we’ll be building the wall anyway” by using statutory authority to use Defense Department and other federal assets and resources to engage in barrier construction and secure the border in various other ways. In addition, the Trump administration should redouble efforts to keep his opponents on the defensive politically by shining the spotlight even more brightly on border security gaps left wide open by deal provisions they’ve insisted on.

I know that in yesterday’s post I argued that the Congressional Democrats, who have increasingly made clear their desire to gut meaningful border security completely, would both own a new shutdown morally (in terms of responsibility for government workers and contractors temporarily denied paychecks) and possibly pay a heavy price politically. The trouble is, that contention assumed that the Democrats’ latest cynical gambit, a new, goalpost-moving demand to shrivel (further) the federal government’s ability to detain apprehended illegal aliens – including surging numbers of border crossers – until their status hearings are held, would prevent the negotiators from reaching any agreement.

Consequently, any number of such aliens, including convicted criminals, would be released into American society, with little reason to believe many of them would risk a deportation decision (which would not be first for many). The result, as I wrote yesterday, would be a big victory for the Democrats’ principal goal of maximizing the number of migrants who can set foot on American soil to begin with, who consequently could avail themselves of the full range of legal due process protections to which everyone within U.S. territory is entitled, who would be released before their status hearings, and who would be scot-free to live and work in the United States until the Open Borders crowd could implement yet another amnesty.

Instead, the negotiators came to a conclusion that they, at least – if not necessarily many in their respective parties – could accept. There’s no denying that its threadbare reported barrier appropriation figure ($1.375 billion) would leave the current border security situation just about as unacceptable as it is today. So would the reported new quota on detention beds, which represent a big part of Washington’s ability to ensure that individuals arrested for immigration-law and related transgressions show up for hearings.

Final judgment should be withheld until the official text of the deal is released – especially on the beds issue. But some of the worst possible outcomes – from an immigration realist perspective – appear to have been avoided. In particular, although previous votes by Democrats so far haven’t been enough to prevent closet Open Borders supporters like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from declaring walls to be “immoral,” the new agreement will make this childish position more difficult than ever to take. In addition, the current number of border detention beds is being cut, but not, it seems, by nearly as much as the Democrats recently sought, and the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agency apparently will retain flexibility in their location.

Further, as its spokespeople have insisted, there’s a strong argument that President has ample legal authority to build and strengthen more in the way of barriers than the deal approves – even without taking the highly controversial step of declaring a national emergency. For example, as noted by one of my Twitter followers (“TruthHunterMan”), in a variety of circumstances, federal law states that “The Secretary of Defense may provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of any other department or agency of the Federal Government or of any State, local, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency.”

Moreover, this statute specifies that one of the purposes for which this assistance may be provided include “the transportation of supplies and equipment, for the purpose of facilitating counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime within or outside the United States” and, more specifically, “Construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.”

In addition, as stated by White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, “We will take as much money as you can give us and then we will go find money someplace else legally in order to secure that southern barrier.” So let the search intensify.

Finally, the Trump administration has done a fair job of publicizing the dangers to public safety posed by inadequate border security, but much more is possible. For instance, couldn’t the administration vividly illustrate how limits on detention are forcing the release of dangerous aliens by publishing on a regular basis the names of these individuals and the charges against them? And maybe some mass releases could be conducted regularly, too – with officials reading this information to broadcast news audiences as the migrants in question are set free? That would sure be Must-See TV. 

This strategy would have the added virtues of freeing federal workers – especially low-wage workers employed both directly and indirectly through contractors – of the threat of real economic hardship; of avoiding the forced labor situation that results from requiring essential workers to report to their jobs even if their departments aren’t funded; and of ensuring that the quality of vital services like air traffic control and Department of Homeland Security missions including Coast Guard patrols isn’t dangerously degraded.

Even passage of the latest full Trump proposal wouldn’t have strengthened border security much in the near future. So signing the Congressional compromise clearly wouldn’t produce a fatal setback. The main challenge now before the President is to flip as much of the script as he can, and capitalize on all the opportunities before him to secure as much of the border as America can ASAP.

Im-Politic: Why Democrats Will Own a Second Shutdown

Tags

barriers, border security, border wall, Congress, crime, Democrats, detention, government shutdown, ICE, illegal aliens, Im-Politic, Immigration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Open Borders, Trump

With Congressional negotiators still racing to reach a deal, it’s unclear whether or not they’ll be able to reach the immigration and border security policy compromise needed to avoid the second partial federal government shutdown in two months. What’s completely clear, however, is that although President Trump declared that he “owned” the first shutdown, Congressional Democrats will deserve the blame this time.

The reason? In recent days, they’ve removed any doubt that their position has nothing to do with their stated belief that border walls are “immoral,” or even that President Trump’s focus on new barriers of any kind is hopelessly out of date. Instead, these Democrats – or at least their leaders – have now disclosed that their real price is a big step toward gutting any meaningful enforcement of immigration law.

Skeptics obviously haven’t paid attention to the course of Congressional negotiations since Friday. At that point, both Republicans and Democrats were expressing guarded optimism that a deal was in sight that involved keeping the entire federal government open in exchange for including actual funding (i.e., appropriations), for more barriers in the Department or Homeland Security (DHS) budget for the current fiscal year – not the kind of unenforceable promise to authorize certain levels of spending over the course of man years that marked previous recent efforts to keep the whole government open.

Hopes for a deal aren’t dead yet, but over the weekend, the Democrats dealt them a major setback by moving the goalposts. Their major new demand was for an unrealistically low (given the great recent increase in would-be border crossers of all kinds) limit in the number of beds maintained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to detain individuals arrested for violations of immigration law.

Congressional Democrats described their stance as an effort to impose sanity on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. In the words of California Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, “A cap on ICE detention beds will force the Trump administration to prioritize deportation for criminals and people who pose real security threats, not law-abiding immigrants who are contributing to our country.”

But no one can seriously doubt that crippling immigration enforcement is the real objective. In the first place, although it’s tempting – at least for argument’s sake – the critics’ charges that the Trump enforcement dragnet is too broad, let’s not forget that a key demand of many Democrats in recent months has not been to reform ICE practices, but to abolish the agency.

Second, there’s every reason to view the Democrats’ definition of “criminals” and “real security threats” as far too narrow. For example, many U.S. illegal aliens who hold a job are committing identity fraud in one form or another – including theft of Social Security cards. Critics of strict enforcement of immigration law tend to belittle these violations, and if you agree, that’s your right – but please spare me your complaints the next time you’re victimized by identity theft, or  become upset that constantly rising Social Security outlays are fueling the national debt.

Moreover, closet Open Borders supporters have a long record of defining down below the “serious” level many crimes that physically harm or endanger individuals – including assault, battery, sex offenses, drunk driving, and gun-related crimes.

And these coddlers of illegal alien crimes aren’t restricted to the Mainstream Media. In Montgomery County, Maryland – a suburb of Washington, D.C. – lawmakers introduced a measure to provide taxpayer-funded legal aid to illegal aliens that originally would have extended such assistance to illegals convicted of offenses such as “fraud, distribution of heroin, second- and third-degree burglary and obstruction of justice….” And let’s not forget the indulgent attitudes and practice of the nation’s many sanctuary jurisdictions.

What the Democrats pushing for fewer beds really want is a de facto (at least at first) U.S. immigration policy that prioritizes maximizing the numbers of foreign migrants able to set foot on U.S. soil, to thereby avail themselves of the wide range of due process protections afforded to anyone within this country’s territorial limits, and to then be released shortly after their initial apprehension.

As a result, these migrants – including declared asylum seekers and would-be refugees – will be completely free to skip their scheduled status hearings, and to become eligible for whatever future amnesties the Open Borders crowd has in mind once it regains enough power in Washington.

Of course, it’s one thing to make the case on the merits that the Democrats will own this shutdown. It’s another entirely for Mr. Trump to convince the public. Making this sale could represent his biggest challenge yet as President.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Private Sector U.S. Jobs Increasingly Really Deserve the Name

Tags

Barack Obama, Employment, healthcare, Jobs, private sector jobs, recession, recovery, subsidized private sector, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although unemployment in America has hovered near multi-decade lows for most of the last year, concerns about job quality rightly persist – largely because wage gains have only recently showed signs of recovering to historically normal levels for a recovery. But the latest official data from the Labor Department demonstrate that the makeup of the country’s employment picture and how it’s changed make clear continued improvement in one key measure: Growing private sector employment increasingly reflects gains in what I’ve called the real private sector, as opposed to the subsidized private sector.

Also apparent from the employment figures: The resurgence of the real private sector in relative terms as well as in absolute terms has been a Trump era phenomenon.

As known by RealityChek regulars, this trend is encouraging because the subsidized private sector consists of parts of the economy that are often (and even officially) viewed as parts of the private sector, but whose health depends largely on government largesse. That is, its total employment and its employment gains would be much smaller without huge government payouts – i.e., politicians’ decisions. The healthcare services industry is the main example.

By contrast, the real private sector consists of parts of the economy whose health flows largely from free market forces. So without getting involved in the debate over whether the United States supports too many subsidized private sector jobs or not, it should be clear that they have little to do with the state and health of the economy as a whole – unlike real private sector jobs.

According to the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 2013 through 2016, the subsidized private sector’s share of total annual employment increases more than doubled: from 11.34 percent to 25.99 percent. And its share of annual total private sector jobs gains (that is, employment increases by the private sector as conventionally defined), soared from 11.02 percent to 28.59 percent.

During 2017 and 2018 (and the data for late 2018 is still preliminary), the subsidized private sector’s share of total annual U.S. jobs gains dropped to 21.04 percent and then to 19.90 percent. And its share of the growth of total private sector jobs fell to 21.91 percent and then to 20.74 percent.

Another way to look at the Obama-era growth of subsidized private sector employment is to examine its growth as a share of the growth of real private sector jobs. In 2013, this figure stood at 12.38 percent. In 2016? Just over 40 percent. In other words, in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency, some four in ten of the net new jobs created in the private sector came in the subsidized private sector – meaning that they were heavily dependent on government largesse.

In 2017 and 2018, subsidized private sector jobs growth as a share of total private sector jobs growth sank all the way to 28.05 percent, and then to 26.16 percent.

Looking at the economy from a static standpoint – i.e., through snapshots taken at crucial dates – illustrates these trends, too, although less dramatically. After all, even major relative changes can take many years to show up as major absolute changes in a supertanker as big as the U.S. economy.

At the outset of the last recession the subsidized private sector represented 13.67 percent of all U.S. jobs and the real private sector’s share was 70.16 percent. And the subsidized private sector’s share of the total (conventionally defined) private sector was 19.49 percent.

By the time the recovery began, in mid-2009, these figures stood at 14.97 percent and 67.80 percent – showing that during an economic downturn that decimated the overall American jobs market, subsidized private sector employment rose not only in relative terms but in absolute terms (from 18.92 million to 19.61 million. Meanwhile, the subsidized private sector’s share of the total private sector employment had risen to 22.07 percent.

By January, 2017 – the final month of the Obama administration and eight and a half years into the recovery – the subsidized private sector comprised 15.75 percent of all American jobs, and the real private sector was back up to 68.94 percent. Subsidized private sector employment had grown to 22.84 percent of total private sector jobs.

By December, 2018 (results that are still preliminary) the subsidized private sector’s share of all American employment had kept increasing – to 15.91 percent. And the real private sector’s share grew modestly, too – to 69.11 percent, as did the subsidized private sector’s share of the total private sector (to 23.02 percent).

Nevertheless, this examination of the changing dimensions of subsidized private sector employment also reveals that the national jobs market still hasn’t returned to pre-recession normality. In particular, even though the current recovery is nearing it’s tenth anniversary, that real private sector share of total employment (69.11 percent) is still below where it stood at the downturn’s onset (70.16 percent).

Im-Politic: Trump Immigration Policy Caught Red-Handed – Working

Tags

asylum seekers, border security, border wall, ICE, illegal aliens, Im-Politic, Immigration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mainstream Media, Michael Miller, MS-13, refugees, Trump, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Washington Post

Mirroring the broader, hysterical Never Trump-ism that’s overcome so much of America’s bipartisan political establishment and its grassroots supporters (along with their foreign counterparts), the Mainstream Media just keeps killing it in the Trump Derangement Syndrome Department. And hot on the heels of that Financial Times editorial I posted on yesterday that faulting a Trump nominee for lacking the leadership and intellectual “heft” of someone who should have been tried as a Vietnam War-related criminal comes a Washington Post article handling the President’s immigration policy record with equally clueless – and equally jaw-dropping – incompetence.

According to Post reporter Michael Miller (and his editors), Mr. Trump is way off-base targeting the murderous Hispanic criminal gang MS-13, and similar networks of thugs, to muster support for his restrictionist immigration policies. The reason? “[E]ven as [the President] warned again and again about the dangers posed by MS-13 members and the need for a wall to keep them out, killings connected to the gang were plummeting in many of the areas where MS-13 has been most active.”

In other words, what could be dumber? And/or more cynical?

But in the very same article, Miller told readers that “federal law enforcement officials say MS-13 violence fell last year as a result of intensified nationwide investigations.”

More specifically, the author writes, “While Trump’s attacks on the gang have been relentless, current and former immigration officials, law enforcement agencies and gang experts attributed the decline in MS-13 murders to an aggressive response by local and federal authorities.”

For good measure, accompanying the article is a photo with this caption: “Northern Virginia Gang Task Force officers partner with ICE [the federal government’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency] officers to arrest an alleged MS-13 gang member in Manassas in 2017.”

Maybe Miller thinks the President has nothing to do with ICE and other federal authorities?

The author did present convincing evidence that President Trump has hardly been the first chief executive to crack down on MS-13. But he also presented evidence just as convincing that none of the success achieved by these campaigns has lasted. And if you think that the President’s insistence on more physical border barriers has been irrelevant to this crisis, consider this point made by the author: Following evidence of a reduction in gang activity, after 2014, “a surge of unaccompanied minors from Central America helped revitalize MS-13.”

And as made clear by a 2017 Post article linked in Miller’s piece, many of them made their way into the United States because inadequate border security enabled them to sneak in, or because, thanks to permissive federal policies for dealing with arrivals as a whole, “more than 150,000 such teens and children [to that point, two years ago] have been detained at the border, screened and placed in communities through the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).”

And “Follow-up [for these resettlement efforts] is limited, and many youths fail to show up for immigration proceedings, a recent congressional investigation showed. At the same time, there are gaps in local efforts to reach vulnerable children and teens before the gang does.”

These problems could be greatly reduced by (1) better physical barriers that prevent would-be border crossers from setting foot in U.S. territory in the first place, and thereby automatically becoming eligible for the entire range of due-process protections to which citizens and other residents – legal and illegal – are entitled; and (2) related Trump administration proposals that would require refugee applicants and asylum-seekers to stay outside U.S. territory while their claims are examined.

In other words, Miller and his editors clearly thought they were serving up a classic Trump “gotcha” story. But even a minimally careful reading of the piece catches them red-handed in a disgraceful – as well as inept – example of media bias.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Laughable Indictment of Trump’s World Bank Choice

Tags

David Malpass, economic development, Financial Times, globalism, multilateralism, third world, Trump, World Bank, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I was going to post this morning on more implications of yesterday’s new monthly U.S. trade figures, but as so often happens, the Mainstream Media has just come out with an article whose mind-boggling cluelessness reveals such deep-seated biases that I had to switch gears. Special bonus – it didn’t even come from a mainstay of the establishmentarian U.S. foreign policy and globalization Blob. Instead, we have the Financial Times editorial board to thank.

What other conclusion can be reasonably drawn from the FT editorial slamming President Trump’s appointment of David Malpass to head the World Bank?

Not that Malpass has been God’s Gift to Economics or to the cause of third world economic development. But according to the FT, a big problem with Malpass is that he lacks the leadership experience as well as intellectual and often political heft of previous U.S. choices like – wait for it – Robert S. McNamara.

That’s right – the same Robert McNamara who deserves such blame for the American disaster in Vietnam. What’s next for the FT? Criticizing Mr. Trump for appointing a senior military adviser lacking the battlefield genius of George Armstrong Custer?

Almost as bad: What’s given the FT editorialists the idea that McNamara, or any of his pre-Malpass successors, was such a whiz at the Bank? Here’s an appraisal of McNamara’s tenure arguing that he unintentionally created “incentives for Bank staff and management to push money out the door, sometimes with relatively little regard for how it would be used—a practice that still bedevils the Bank’s work today.” And this was from an admirer.

A second major FT argument against Malpass looks more reasonable at first glance:

“His judgment even on economics, his supposed speciality, is wanting. Notoriously, as then chief economist at Bear Stearns, Mr Malpass was blithely confident about the strength of the US economy in 2007 — a year before the global financial crisis hit and his own employer went under.”

What the FT conveniently forgets, though, is that using this standard would rule out virtually every economist in the world as World Bank president.  

Considerably stronger is the FT‘s observation that “As early as 2011 [Malpass] suggested tightening monetary policy and driving up the dollar, a hard-money philosophy entirely at odds with the reality that the Fed had averted economic disaster.”

The problem with this school of thought is that, although the Federal Reserve’s flooding of the American economy with easy money may have been necessary to keep the nation (and world) afloat, it’s also arguably created a global addiction to super-cheap credit that’s kneecapped chances of restoring genuine long-run economic health.

As contended by no less an economic authority than Lawrence Summers (a former World Bank research chief), the result has been “secular stagnation” – the inability of the United States or other major countries to grow acceptably without inflating lending and spending bubbles that are doomed to burst disastrously.

As the editorial makes clear, the FT mainly objects to Malpass because he’s “deeply sceptical of multilateral institutions.” Which would be funny even if the FT itself didn’t describe the Bank as already “dysfunctional” – despite being led by McNamara and all his supposedly genius successors.

More fundamentally, all else equal, why should anyone lack skepticism about any means to an end? Worshiping multilateralism is like worshiping a hammer. Sometimes is the best tool to use; sometimes it’s not.

The FT reasonably argues that “With an increasing number of rival sources of development finance — not to mention private capital — the bank needs to think hard about where it can best add value.” The paper just as reasonably concludes that effecting change requires its president “to be a critical friend of multilateralism who recognises that its institutions need to be adapted to a changing world, not an instinctive ideological enemy.”

But given that these – and other – problems with the Bank have persisted for so long, it’s hard to imagine that a leader accepted by multilateral fetishists like the FT would generate the necessary push.

As a result, the Malpass nomination can just as reasonably be viewed as a Trump administration attempt to change the kind of losing game coddled for so long by diehard multilateralists like the FT editorial board. Such critics should exhibit a little more humility before writing him off as a sure failure. Not to mention minimal historical memory. 

Im-Politic: Out of the Mouths of Globalists – A Case for the Wall

Tags

Afghanistan, America First, border security, border wall, foreign policy, globalism, government shutdown, Im-Politic, Immigration, jihadism, Middle East, State of the Union, terrorism, The New York Times, Trump

With the possibility of another Border Wall-related government shutdown hanging over tonight’s State of the Union – and all of American politics – it’s pretty astonishing to recognize that The New York Times editorial board, which strongly opposes the wall, and which has long championed a globalist approach to foreign policy issues, has just unwittingly endorsed a Trump-ian, America First-style approach to border security.

The endorsement came in The Times‘ recent editorial calling for a prompt U.S. military pullout from Afghanistan – a position that’s also decidedly Trump-ian.

According to Times editorial writers, the main rationale originally cited for fighting in Afghanistan was flawed from the start. It focused too tightly on

“the idea that war abroad could prevent bloodshed at home. As [then President George W. Bush] explained in 2004: ‘We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities.’”

Globalists well to the left of Bush endorsed this rationale as well, notably former President Barack Obama. His first bid for the White House stressed that Afghanistan was a “good war” and a conflict that “had to be won” in order to “take the fight to the terrorists” – in stark contrast to Mr. Bush’s “dumb” war in Iraq.

But The Times – which admirably recognizes that it bought this line as well – now suggests that this argument never made much sense. Although acknowledging that “since 9/11, no foreign terrorist group has conducted a deadly attack inside the United States,” it adds that

“there have been more than 200 deadly terrorist attacks during that period, most often at the hands of Americans radicalized by ideologies that such groups spread. Half of those attacks were motivated by radical Islam, while 86 came at the hands of far-right extremists.”

The Times doesn’t draw the obvious implication, but it couldn’t be clearer even to a minimally perceptive observer: The kinds of terrorist threats the paper spotlights have appeared in the United States in large measure because border security has been so shoddy for so long. In particular, American immigration authorities have never adequately screened newcomers from countries where radical Islam has taken root, and who are therefore unusually vulnerable to radicalization.

It’s conceivable that border security could effectively address these challenges without the kind of physical barriers now sought by President Trump – and demonized by most of Congress’ Democrats. But at the least, The Times‘ rationale strongly militates for other Trump-ian, America First-style border security measures, like applying travel bans against countries that are known hotbeds of terrorism and strict limits on admitting refugees and asylum-seekers from these same points of origin.

And barriers look especially important given the extensive legal/due process protections now automatically awarded to anyone who sets foot on American soil, including from countries whose threadbare (at best) governments lack the capacity to document the identity of their residents satisfactorily. Therefore, adequate vetting by the U.S. government will be excruciatingly difficult, to put it mildly.

But if The Times wants to clinch the case for withdrawing promptly from Afghanistan, it should make a point I’ve made repeatedly: It will be far easier to protect against terrorist threats by relying mainly on border security because access to the country is something Washington can reasonably hope to control. Protecting against terrorist threats mainly by chasing jihadists around a completely dysfunctional region of the world whose greatest strength is spawning extremism would base American strategy on something Washington can’t reasonably hope to control.

And of course, connecting an end to massive American military involvement in the Middle East with the need for more secure borders could only bolster President Trump’s position, too.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: It’s Still the Same Old Story – No Tariff Damage to U.S. Manufacturing’s in Sight

Tags

China tariffs, Jobs, Labor Department, Mainstream Media, manufacturing, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

At this stage, despite what you read in the Mainstream Media, it would be genuinely newsy to report that official U.S. government data were indeed showing any significant damage to domestic manufacturing from the President Trump’s tariffs. Figures showing no significant damage at all from either the levies on steel and aluminum, or on products from China? They’ve become old hat, and this morning’s Labor Department report on the job market for January was no exception.

As of this January data, we now have ten months’ worth of statistics shedding lots of light on whether the metals tariffs have harmed the country’s metals-using industries. As you’ll recall, a main argument against the metals tariffs held that because the metals-using sectors were much larger, even if the levies helped steel and aluminum makers, they’d become an exercise in cutting one’s nose off to spite one’s face. For the number of workers and factories hurt by higher costs for a key material would far outnumber those helped by more expensive steel and aluminum.

Nonetheless, the January jobs report shows once again that nothing of the kind is happening. Indeed, as the table below makes clear, most of the country’s main metals-using manufacturing industries keep outperforming the rest of manufacturing. And some are creating jobs at a faster pace than the private sector overall.

And the laggards? Automotive is unmistakably gaining momentum, and household appliances are still experiencing the effects not only of metals tariffs, but of narrower tariffs on household laundry machines, and of a slumping housing sector.

                                                         Old thru Dec.    New thru Dec.     Thru Jan.

entire private sector:                       +1.37 percent    +1.36 percent    +1.60 percent

overall manufacturing:                   +1.45 percent    +1.39 percent    +1.49 percent

durable goods:                                +1.67 percent    +1.72 percent   +1.97 percent

fabricated metals products:            +1.75 percent    +1.57 percent   +1.78 percent

non-electrical machinery:              +2.20 percent     +2.33 percent   +2.57 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:         +0.77 percent     +1.07 percent   +1.15 percent

household appliances:                     not available      -2.21 percent    not available

aerospace products & parts:            not available     +5.51 percent     not available

But maybe the story is different for the China tariffs? Here the picture is fuzzier, both because the first tranche has only been in place since early July, and because the jobs data doesn’t match up that well with the categories of products tariff-ed in that first group (except for farm machinery and equipment). In addition, most of these categories are too narrow to show up in the Labor Department interactive data bases without a one-month lag. But the numbers below, which represent major manufacturing sectors that contain the tariff-ed goods, don’t show much tariff-related damage on the employment front since (and including) July.

As has been the case during this period, some industries have outperformed; others have under-performed. The resulting takeaway? Lots of factors other than China tariffs are affecting payrolls in these manufacturing segments.

                                                             July-December                     July-January

overall manufacturing                         +0.80 percent                      +0.91 percent

aircraft engines and engine parts:       +0.58 percent                       not available

industrial heating equipment:             +1.12 percent                       not available

oil and gas drilling platform parts:     +2.71 percent                       not available

farm machinery and equipment:        +0.20 percent                       not available

ball bearings:                                     +1.05 percent                       not available

But although the coverage of the Trump tariffs has stubbornly remained an exercise in gloom-mongering in the face of increasingly overwhelming evidence (here’s just one recent leading example), one reason for hope can be identified. Maybe the gulf between the trade reporting and the trade facts simply results from inherent argumentativeness and contrarianism – the kind that’s often seen in teenagers. If I’m right, the minute the tariff data becomes bad, the Mainstream Media will start serving up anecdotes about plucky exceptions to the rule.

 

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: U.S. Companies Keep Feeding the China Tech Beast

Tags

AI, artificial intelligence, Bloomberg.com, China, hacking, Karen Weise, Microsoft, national security, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Paul Mozur, technology, technology transfer, The New York Times, Trump

Wow! This was quite the revealing – and disturbing – nugget buried in a recent New York Times article about American tech companies’ trials and tribulations in China! According to reporters Paul Mozur and Karen Weise, Microsoft’s “long-established research and development center has turned out valuable products and launched the careers of a generation of artificial-intelligence experts who have started important new companies in China.”

Mozur and Weise mentioned this Microsoft activity in order to make the important point that even companies, like the Seattle software giant, that have bent over backwards to remain viable in China by keeping Beijing happy in various ways seem to be fighting a losing battle. For even these firms are falling victim to China’s persistent desire to replace them in the country’s huge market with Chinese rivals.

But the reference to Microsoft’s artificial intelligence operations could well matter more to the United States because it underscores a point I made several years ago in a Bloomberg.com op-ed that bears on American national security: For decades, U.S. tech companies have been transferring to Chinese entities cutting edge knowhow that has greatly strengthened Beijing’s ability to endanger key American interests. It’s the price they need to pay to keep playing in the Chinese market. But whatever the commercial justification, and whether these transfers are voluntary, coerced, or somewhere in between (including the training of China’s tech workforce), they’ve too long been neglected by American policymakers.

My Bloomberg piece focused on technologies related to cyberhacking – where transfers ironically were coming back to bite the U.S. tech firms themselves. Since then, in several posts for RealityChek, I’ve covered tech transfer that’s handing China more conventional advanced defense-related knowhow. (See, e.g., here and here.)

But artificial intelligence-related operations push the threat to an entirely new level. For these capabilities will likely be the biggest game-changers in national security for decades, and Washington is already so alarmed by the progress China has made that many specialists worry that Beijing could soon forge ahead. Nearly as troubling: The more such tech American companies keep handing over to the Chinese, the closer China gets to self-sufficiency – the point at which it won’t need American assistance anymore.

The Trump administration rightly keeps calling attention to China’s growing technological prowess and the resulting dangers to the United States, and even many long-time supporters of the reckless pre-Trump China engagement policies are starting to agree.

But tariffs to punish predatory Chinese policies aimed at building tech dominance, and curbs on Chinese tech investments in the U.S. economy are necessary, not sufficient responses. The above linked Financial Times article indicates the administration now recognizes need to staunch the flow of advanced knowhow to China by American companies. But every minute new curbs are delayed, the United States will keep feeding the beast.