LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Hindusthan Times on president Trump's 25% steel tariff on steel imports focuses on the trade deficit with China of $375 billion in 2017. It shows the trade deficit for the month of February 2018 citing data from China as growing rapidly in 2018 over the prior year by 45%, even as imports went up only by 6.3%. In looking at coverage in the U.S. on this topic many of the reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times were critical of the tariff without mentioning the size of the trade surplus of China. Hardly any reports mentioned the growth by 45% in the February 2018 trade surplus of China with the U.S. over the prior year.  This report cites a tweet by president Trump that China was asked to come up with a plan to reduce its trade surplus by $1 billion in 2018, only 0.27% of the trade surplus, which looks strange as this would do little to change the trading relationship except that it puts pressure on China to change the direction of the surplus that is growing because of the strengthening dollar and the growth in the U.S.  This suggests that even with the 25% steel tariff America's basic problem of the imbalance in trading relationship with China will continue.  The headlines critical of Trump for starting a trade war therefore look strange in this context and show how little this subject is understood or debated with facts. Even today textbook economics principles are cited after two decades of hollowing out of industry in the midwestern U.S. and in Ontario, Canada. This led to public sentiment shift electing a liberal Justin Trudeau in Canada, and an outsider real estate businessman Donald Trump in the U.S.  For Democrats in the U.S. the support of marginal additional gains in trade with president Obama's push for another free trade agreement in the TPP may have cost them theiir working class base and the election.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
If China reduced its automobile tariffs to 2.5% from current 25% it would help German carmakers such as BMW that export from U.S. plants to China. BMW as a premium brand is better able to absorb the transport costs and does not manufacture cars in China. U.S. makers Ford and GM would benefit less as they already have plants making cars in China. By not making cars in China BMW does not have to transfer technology to a Chinese partner.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. tariffs on a long list of 1300 products includes products such as industrial robots that China sees as a potential area of future growth and technological advantage. In this way the Trump administration tariff is shaping up to be part of a longer term U.S. plan to meet the challenge from Chinese competition in key advanced technology products. These are products China explicitly targeted in its "Made in China 2025" plan. The list compiled by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the former Trade negotiator under the Reagan Administration, targets products such as electric car batteries. China supports its own electric car battery makers by blocking U.S. suppliers from its domestic markets. The new tariffs would do the same for China in the U.S. market. In industrial robots China has 87,000 in 2016, and plans to meet a shortage of labor in its manufacturing plants by using better and more efficient robots. Aircraft and airplane parts are also targets as China has plans to expand its aerospace industry. The list also includes 200 machines, with machinery exports from China making up a significant part of exports to the U.S. So comprehensive is this list of 1100 products that it includes ships, trains, any product in which China's subsidies for its industries, its industrial policies make it easier for it to gain dominance in a product category as has happened in solar panels. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The auto sector has an outsized effect on economic growth that is not easily grasped. The IMF sees a fifth of slowdown in growth of global gross domestic product and a third of world trade coming just from low demand for autos. The auto sector feeds into demand for steel, aluminium, copper, plastic and electronics, so it feeds into other sectors. Aging populations, stagnant incomes, ride sharing, and economic headwinds on trade for China, slower demand with lower economic activity in India from bad loans and low credit in the finance sector, all have cut into growth. Tariffs from president Trump and tit for tat tariffs increase costs and cut into profits. In Europe there is added factor of mandated drop in carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2021. The new technology will increase costs of autos by 800 to 5000 euros and add 5-11% to the selling price, reducing sales by about 5%.  A fast growing market is India but companies such as Ford and GM have moved out as it slows down. Higher emissions standards in India for 2020 are likely to increase prices in a very price sensitive market. Lower availability of credit in China and India have led to drop in sales of about 15% in both major markets for autos since mid 2018.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The rise of Japan was a major challenge for president Reagan in the 1980's in the way president Trump is confronting the rise of China. The Reagan administration obtained the concessions it needed from Japan. The negotiator for the U.S. side during the Reagan years - Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer is using his experience in winning concessions from Japan in his role as top trade negotiator with China.  As the WSJ points out Japan ceased to be a threat to the U.S. faster than anyone thought possible. 

But there is one problem even if this happens the warning is that the imbalances with Japan simply transferred over time to China. The warning is for America's tendency to spend money it does not have, and for how long.

LyrArc Article Gist
One negative effect of the trade war with the U.S. is an increased emphasis on energy security and increased use of coal in China. After China committed to goals for climate change coal use declined in 2014, after reaching a high in 2013. The attack on Saudi oil facilities showed risk in its reliance on Saudi oil. China's import dependency for oil reached an all time high of 72% in 2018, according to BP 2019 Statistical Review. Gradually the commitment to climate change and lower use of coal has changed since 2016 with the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Initially after the U.S. withdrawal under president Trump China made bold commitment to lead the fight against climate change but has since wavered. In an October 2019 speech Premier Li Kequiang called for the development of the coal industry to ensure energy security.  As China's economy slowed in 2019 in the face of U.S. tariffs and a trade war with the U.S. efforts are being made to increase infrastructure investment which has driven coal use higher. China's steel output reached a record of 750 million metric tons in 2019. The amount of coal fired capacity under construction in China now exceeds the rest of the world combined, much of it from plants permitted before 2017, according to Global Energy Monitor. China is also expected to become the world's largest importer of natural gas by 2020. Even the Russian gas fields from Siberia supply only a fifth of China's energy demands in 2020.  China has made large strides in renewable energy helping it meet its Paris Agreement targets. Renewable energy is about 10% of China's energy mix, but its use showed growth of 29% in 2018, making up half of the world's growth. China's use of coal in the energy mix has dropped to 58% in 2018 from 72% in 2008, according to BP 2019 Statistical Review, as a result of renewable energy investments. At the Madrid Climate Conference China renewed its commitment to the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Now it is a balancing act keeping in mind energy security and economic growth along with the need for clear skies and better air quality. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Economist Paul Krugman points out the risks of a trade war in the tariffs announced for steel and aluminium by president Trump. Yet he accepts that he advocated stronger action on China's currency in 2009-2010 when the U.S. economy was weaker. In the past on the TPP agreement proposed by president Obama, Krugman said that it would have an insignificant impact as most of the gains on trade were already made. Here Krugman is critical of the language used by president Trump about trade wars being "easy."  This is taken out of context though as president Trump is saying that it is easy in the context of a country enjoying a $100 billion surplus with the U.S., because that country is going to have incentives to maintain a good trading relationship with the U.S. Essentially this means that the steel industry in the U.S. benefits. China also benefits as it closes many of the older steel plants that led to overproduction. This would reduce overcapacity in China's steel industry, a problem China's economic planners see as a priority. China already is making the shift to higher technology products and this process will be accelerated, as it puts less emphasis on steel and metals as it did in its earlier stage of development. As a result contrary to textbook economics this has the potential to be a win-win solution for the U.S. and China in the long run. So little was done under the Bush and Obama administrations to manage trading relationships with other countries so that the interests of small communities across the U.S. were protected from unfair trade- that Reagan administration trade expert Robert Lighthizer took up the cause of the U.S.,workers in these communities. Surveys showed U.S. public opinion also had shifted among educated, professionals and middle class on this issue by 2015, against unfair trade that hurt U.S. interests. Robert Lighthizer is now the Trade Representative for the U.S. in the Trump administration. Reports in the WSJ about the discussion within the Trump economic council, show Gary Cohn favored not imposing the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Lighthizer advocated the tariffs and was able to convince the president.  For Trump this presents a win-win situation, as a mild response by China -and other trading nations that have enjoyed a favorable situation in the past -with its huge surplus and favorable trading relationship with the U.S. would present a win for the president. Economist Krugman accepts this when he says tariffs in the current context of the trading field- that is more favorable to other countries- are not such a big deal, only the use of such policy that is likely to endanger world trade.  As in much of the debate that takes place this adds to the headlines today yet provides delayed and limited relief to communities across the U.S. devastated by world trade as documented by experts who studied trade patterns and their effect on regions across the U.S.  As the WSJ points out in one report the trade deficit itself may continue to grow under president Trump because of other factors. The U.S. dollar surged 8% during the last 2 years of the Obama administration with the economic recovery underway. With Trump's election win the dollar surged another 3%. This may play a bigger role in the direction of the trade deficit than the new steel tariffs announced by president Trump. Workers and unions matter. As TPP pushed by Democratic party president Obama was opposed by the unions, and by the auto industry (workers and auto companies) in the midwestern states which suffered a hollowing out in the last decade. A WSJ survey after the election showed Clinton received 56% support from union workers in 2018 compared to 65% for president Obama in the 2012 election. Some of that erosion in support may come from Obama's TPP stand fervently opposed by the unions and workers in the auto industry. A similar situation took place in Ontario with hollowing out of the auto industry in this large industrial state in Canada and led to the rejection of the Conservative government and election of the Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau. This lesson is so far lost in the Democratic Party's debate.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT report looks at the 20 counties within 5 battleground states in the midwestern states of Wisconsin, Michigan, eastern state of Pennsylvania, southern state of North Carolina and western state of Arizona. It shows the percentage of votes gained by the Republican and Democratic parties in the last 3 presidential elections. A look at the trend and direction of vote percentages gained by each party in each of the 20 counties in different states may be a better indication of the final result than polls alone as both parties are pushing hard in the 2020 election down to the last day. The Republicans strong in the ground game and organized effort, and Democrats in television advertising outspending the Republicans. Because of the clearly delineated positions the Democrats and Republicans stand in sharp contrast to each other both in image and substance.  Because of the Electoral College and states assigned electoral votes based on size the U.S. system is not based on the total vote count in the country. Who wins each state by vote count and gets the assigned electoral college votes assigned to that state, an builds up more than 270 Electoral College votes wins the election for president of the USA.  In Michigan there is the impact of the resurgence of the auto industry, with president Trump pulling out of TPP agreement and renegotiating NAFTA in favor of the U.S. auto industry bringing back jobs from Mexico. This puts the union vote in the auto industry- with Ford, GM and Chrysler located in Michigan- favoring these auto friendly policies from the current administration. The resilience of the auto industry sales during coronavirus is part of the economic story in Michigan. The renegotiated NAFTA treaty also helped dairy farmers of Wisconsin increase sales to Canada. In Pennsylvania the coronavirus and economic impact has hit harder than in Michigan with the decline in oil prices and effect on fracking industry. Closure of coal plants is also having a negative impact on the state. Tariffs on Chinese steel by the administration are helping the steel industry. Offsetting these economic stories is perception of how the coronavirus pandemic has been tackled by the administration. Added to this is the suburban women's vote and the shift of out of state liberal voters to suburbs in North Carolina (Wake county), and in Arizona (Maricopa county and Tucson area). States not covered here but also relevant are Minnesota which could be a battleground state in the midwest and Iowa. Racial protests in Minneapolis add another dimension with controversies about the policing in cities such as Minneapolis and recently Philadelphia. The sharp contrasts in image as well as policy, the coronavirus pandemic and the handling of the pandemic as well as the way rallies are being conducted differently by both candidates, and the economic stories, present an election like no other since the 1960's. The contrast is as sharp as between Gen. Dwight Eisenhower of the wartime allied effort and Adlai Stevenson a liberal and humanist in the 1952 election. That election saw some of the highest turnouts since the second world war, and this is now happening today. That election also determined the direction of postwar growth and dominance of American industry, the setting up of the National Highway system and important changes that were later continued under the Kennedy administration. It also marked the beginning of the Cold War following the Korean War under the Truman administration, a situation that is emerging in a different way today with the free world and the tension from relations with China. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs good manufacturing jobs for the jobs and income that it brings into communities, and also because of the tax revenues from the companies making products in America that provide the basis for local governments to provide good public services in healthcare, education, and transportation. To say comparitive advantage that helped first Japanese and now Chinese manufacturers is real and how society gains is to deny some basic facts that are self evident from observation that contradict textbook ideas in economics. Comparitive Advantage is a textbook economics concept that says countries are proficient in what they make best and should specialize in that product. But it is a static concept that exists only in textbooks. If Japan in 1960, China in 1980 and India in 2000 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making steel and remained makers of lower end products such as footwear and textiles. If Japan in 1980, China in 2000, and India in 2020 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making semiconductors and remained makers of lower end products such as steel. A senior vice president of US Steel in the late 1960's even told this writer a graduate student at Northwestern in Chicago- as the US can make steel better than India or China let us keep making it for you. He and much of the business faculty at Northwestern also could not understand in 1970 why Airbus was being setup to compete with Boeing who by the concept of comparitive advantage should have had the whole market to itself for commercial aircraft . By this kind of thinking Airbus would not exist today because it did not have the lowest cost or the manufacturing technologies Boeing had through its vast manufacturing operation. America would be still the only one making aircraft in 2023 if textbook concepts ruled the day. By indirect methods such as hidden preferential arrangements, provision of inputs such as land, capital and labor, tax relief, the costs can be represented in a way that shows it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. The lack of a level playing field is what president Biden is correcting by doing what first Japan, then South Korea, then China and now India are doing since the 1960's. By 1974 in four years after its founding in 1970 Airbus came up with its first model the A-300 using advanced technologies. America will regain its leadership in the cost and manufacturing of many products through Biden policy and the efforts of American companies by 2030, and do this in a transformative way that will benefit the world as a whole.  It is an enormous error to say the US does not need good manufacturing jobs, that local governments do not need the tax revenues from manufacturing plants to build services for communities where manufacturing workers live, and the US does not need the manufacturing experience curve that leads to reduced costs. It is this loss of the manufacturing experience curve that is the most vital aspect for understanding the need for the US government to compete effectively with the governments of Asian countries to keep manufacturing healthy and strong at home. Economics experts ignorant of how important this science and engineering principle is fail to grasp this. Related to this is the idea of a virtuous cycle in manufacturing- whoever braves the hard years of moving up the learning and experience curve gets rewarded because once that country has mastered that skill it gets better an better as the technology advances- making it harder and harder to prevent a new monopoly in manufacturing by the country (Japan, China or Taiwan) that had the highest costs and the least advantage ten or 20 years earlier but just persevered through it all with the government's help to gain cost competitiveness. This part does not make it into the economics textbooks which are mostly theory and much of it outdated by the time they are written. Observation is the best teacher and guide as it is in science, to guide policy and action. Obsessive attachment to theory that ignores observation becomes the enemy of progress. Comparitive advantage is one concept that needs to be retired even from the textbooks. Overseas manufacturing then is a piece of the overall picture that fits into what is good for the US. Macroeconomic principles determine microeconomic outcomes as opposed to microeconomic principles with companies out on their own being forced to compete without a level playing field, or handing out technology for special status in a recipient country as some do putting the US at a macroeconomic disadvantage. This is also healthy for the recipient country overseas, as recrimination with loss of manufacturing jobs in the US inevitably leads to the kind of recrimination that does not serve either country well as in the case of China today, and worse still can lead to conflict, even war. After the egregious situation of loss of manufacturing communities across the US leading to destabilizing the social fabric, it is hard to see such thinking prevail about the US not needing manufacturing as a vital part of its social fabric and industrial strength. China, it can be said, would have developed, and developed well over the past two decades without overconcentration of US and EU manufacturing in China. Without aggravating the problems of climate change and contamination of air, land and water, and destabilizing the social fabric in the US hurting workers and communities across the US, if macroeconomic policy was made to manage this process in the US government without it being left entirely to individual companies to decide. Instead China faces today a difficult situation through events such as destabilizing the social fabric in the US (the Trump tariffs), advanced economies in G-7 resistance to sharing of technologies, the damage to its environment from microeconomic locally determined policy at individual companies, and the global effects of climate change from climate unsustainable levels of growth since 2000.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This analysis in the South China Morning Post shows that some of the nuclear options China has in a trade war with the U.S. are not as effective as they appear. Selling off China's huge Treasury holdings would lead to a situation where there are no buyers on the other side. It says private sector bond buyers would run a mile, and the lack of buyers, actions by the U.S. government freezing these assets could render them effectively worthless. The bond yields would jump but only for a short period as the Federal Reserve would step in to buy bonds, and yields would stabilize with the actions of central banks of U.S., Europe and Japan. A dent in the dollar would only make Chinese goods more costly in the U.S. exactly what U.S. tariffs are trying to achieve. A 10% devaluation of the yuan would have the effect of creating expectation of further devaluation, and lead to capital outflows from China on a large scale. A small devaluation in 2015 led to a large outflow. This would lead to a significant loss in foreign exchange reserves for China.  In this way China's deterrent would be less effective than it appears. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's statement calling for a list of goods for tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods leaves China without a clear response and facing new risks. The U.S. exports about $150 billion in goods to China so that China would have to impose penalties to respond at the same level. Placing restrictions on American firms on access to China's market, and imposing other penalties would have the effect of reinforcing the perception of unfair practices targeting American business and lead to hardening of U.S. response.  The U.S. sees itself as being in a better position with the U.S. economy experiencing a growth trend. China with large local government and bank debt faces a difficult situation. President Jinping's policy of reducing the risks of bad debt in the banking system involved sacrificing some growth to stabilize the system. China's GDP growth in 2017 was 6.9%, the target at 6.5%. Future targets and actual growth now look to be much lower.The trade war with the U.S. has the effect of dampening growth leading to calls for the central bank to loosen its monetary stance. In response to Trump's announcement the People's Bank of China pumped $31 billion into the nation's banks. China is studying Japan's response in the 1980's and 1990's when the U.S. took strong action against Japan's growing trade surplus. Japan responded by appreciating its currency and using stimulus to cushion the effect of lower exports on the economy. The stimulus led to the housing bubble and over time a period of low growth and stagnant economy. The large China stimulus in 2008-2009 has compounded the problems in the banking system. Not deleveraging and controlling financial risks in China's banking system because of the trade war would bring a new set of risks. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...