LyrArc Article Gist
Nouriel Roubini has proven correct on global financial issues. He said in an interview on the sidelines of a symposium in Malaysia, that China needs to revalue its currency for its own sake. China will see a growth collapse in the next 2-3 years if it fails to do so. His point is that China can still maintain growth by shifting to domestic consumption and less infrastructure spending and exports. In his view growth should not be affected if China exports less and consumes more. He points to the decrease in consumption as a share of GDP from 45% to 36% in the last ten years- this ratio is 70% in the USA. A cheap yuan keeps foreign goods unaffordable and protects state owned companies which also get cheap credit, as keeping the yuan low requires China to keep interest rates artificially low. What this does is make a massive transfer of income from the household sector to the state owned companies, just at the time when China needs to do the very opposite of this. And compounding the problem is that the 25% of China's GDP that is made up of retained earnings of mostly state owned companies, goes into real estate and production facilities. See the link to David Barboza in the New York Times who points to the wasteful spending and real estate speculation by state owned companies. Roubini cites the automobile sector where capacity has doubled in the last year to 20 million, when the domestic market increased by 50% to 10 million vehicles. The stimulus only increased the effect of surplus capacity and misallocation of investment, with highways to nowhere and brand new airports that are three quarters empty. The Chinese leadership is beginning to grasp this, but the state owned companies and other interests who benefit fromm the old model, may make it difficult to reverse the trends. A lot is at stake in this, as it affects the U.S., as well as countries dependent on China's imports such as Australia, Canada, Brazil and Germany. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The recent appointment of fast food executive Andrew Puzder as Labor Secretary has caused great concern among union leaders. Puzder supports a $9 minimum wage compared to $15 supported by Democrats. Unions now represent 7% of the labor force, down from a high of 20% during Reagan's time when Reagan appointed a construction company executive as Labor Secretary and cut regulations.  Globalization has thinned the ranks of workers in unions. And the failure of Democratic administrations to stem the shift of factories overseas to China, Mexico and other places, as part of global supply chains focussed on cost, has weakened Democratic support among workers since the period of Bill Clinton. It eroded to the point where Obama won 65% of support among unions and Hillary Clinton won 56% in 2016. Interestingly the Republican Romney gained 33% versus 37% for Trump, showing voters were more inclined to move away from Democrats and only a smaller number willing to support Republicans, but the shift enough to give Republicans a win in 2016 for the presidency. The figures are from a Election Day survey of trade union AFL-CIO, and a larger proportion in midwestern states showed disaffection with policies from Clinton to Obama. In fact Obama spent years promoting another free trade agreement TPP that favored tech more than auto and older industries, just as Bill Clinton had promoted NAFTA, without giving thought to what this was doing to its worker base of support. A similar situation happened with Social Democrats in Germany as a SPD administration moved to the centre and handed Christian Democrats led by Merkel a win in parliamentary elections. As Democrats such as former Labor Secretary Reich, a professor at UC Berkeley who served under Bill Clinton, describe the problems of working class people their is less reflection on the impact of the changes from globalization and how Democrats handled or mishandled it, and more on the politics between the two parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's current account surplus has declined to 2.8% of GDP for 2011 from about 10% in 2007, and will be around 2.3% of GDP in 2012, according to IMF estimates. The U.S. current account deficit is down to 3.1% of GDP from 5.1%. By controlling the exchange rate China was able to keep the competitiveness of its exports, resulting in a five fold increase in exports from 2000 to 2010, according to the IMF. The decline could be temporary say experts, as the the recession in Europe and the U.S. resulted in slowing exports, with its infrastructure buildup sucking in imports of machinery and other goods from the western countries at an accelerated pace with its 2009 stimulus measures. Another reason is that in the last decade China has developed its own high tech and other companies which will now increase exports. IMF forecasts show a pickup in China's trade surplus to 4.25% by 2017. This could be lower if the renminbi is allowed to appreciate. Estimates of appreciation of the renminbi are 8 percent in nominal terms since June 2010 against the dollar. Including inflation, which is higher in China, the renminbi has appreciated by 13% since June 2010. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Inflation in China and rising wages are pushing up costs for American manufacturers. The pressure on China, most recently in Congress, is helping to push up the value of the yuan. This combined trend is making it attractive for some manufacturers to bring factories home to the U.S. A trend in the U.S. towards non-unionized labor and the new trend to a two-tier wage level- with lower wages for entry level workers- and the shedding of legacy health care costs, is creating a more cost competitive labor force in the U.S. This extends from older industries such as furniture and auto components to newer industries and technology. The new factories setup in the U.S. use technologies that require a smaller number of workers, in most cases less than half the number of workers that were employed earlier. This adds another element in cost efficiency, though it means fewer jobs are created with new plants.

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Kessler in the WP corrects Obama's claim that he created 800,000 jobs. He says this is clever arithmetic as it takes a low point in Feb. 2010 following the financial crisis. Kessler points out that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. manufacturing jobs were 12.56 million in Jan. 2009 when Obama became president. In Nov. 2016, early estimates show there were 12.26 million manufacturing jobs, a loss of 300,000. This loss does not reflect the problems in the U.S. auto industry and older industries in the midwestern states as a result of trade and globalization that speeded up with the rapid industrialization of China. And led as Greg Ip pointed out in a recent WSJ report to a rapid acceleration of job losses in a decade that did not happen in the same scale during Japan's industrialization and urbanization in the sixties. This aggravated the situation in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, and was met with a feeble response from Democrats. Even a economist like Krugman favoring the Obama administration's efforts came to the conclusion that TPP did not add much to gains from trade as most of the gains had already been realized. More of the gains went to tech and IT in California, at the expense of the auto industry based in the midwest. A report in WP show a president too close to IT in California and failing to grasp the situation in the midwest. Voters punish whoever is in power, regardless of being Conservative or Liberal, in Canada the hollowing out of manufacturing under Harper in Ontario and Quebec led to the win by Trudeau's Liberals.  ...