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
Even though U.S. president Trump has singled out countries such as Mexico, South Korea and China for trade practices, the U.S. today faces stronger competition in trade from Germany. The trade surplus with Germany for 2016 was $297 billion for Germany compared to $245 billion for China, according to Ifo economic institute. China's trade surplus according to the World Bank was down from 10% of gross domestic product or GDP in 2007 to 3% in 2016, while Germany's has gone up to 8.5%. The Chinese currency is seen as not being undervalued by some experts, while the euro has lost a quarter of its value in the last 3 years, giving Geman exporters an edge. The U.S. also competes with Germany in nine of the 10 export categories such as machinery and electronic equipment, according to the Peterson Institute. Then why is the focus under U.S. president Trump not including Germany? One reason is that China's products have put a downward pressure on U.S. manufacturing wages, and the the speed with the Chinese manufacturing has grown in certain industries. Germany has very few of the manufacturing subsidies that China provides to its industries. And the depreciation in the euro is not favored by the German government as it opposes the policies of the European Central Bank. Germany also has a higher propensity to save about 10% of GDP compared to about 3% for the U.S., according to OECD. As a result Germany is accumulating foreign assets at a faster rate than any other nation, while the U.S. is borrowing capital from overseas. Ways to change this are minimum wage regulations introduced by the government, but larger measures such as increasing government investment in the economy are not supported as the country prepares for the future with an aging population.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How Ohio which lost quarter million jobs since 2005 and is skeptical of free trade policies that cost jobs at home is being pandered to by the Clinton and Obama campaigns in primaries March 4, 2008, before a Presidential contest. Criticism of Nafta by both candidiates and a call for 27.5% tariff on Chinese imports as action against China for manipulating exchange rates. The working class white male, steel worker or factory worker is becoming important part of the determiners of this election campaign for primaries and for President. See his concens in the link in the WSJ. One thing is for sure a tariff on Chinese goods would upset a delicate trade balance that has existed for the last 2 decades. Its also ironic as China is finally shifting policy that will make Chinese goods more expensive in the USA, which is already apparent in apparel on American store shelves. And exchange rates are gradually shifting to add to price pressures inside the USA. Whats more the Fed finds it more difficult to raise rates while inflation picks up so a tariff would add to inflationary pressures and lower consumption in the US. See the links on this under China inflation policies. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Munich Security Conference is being organized by Christoph Heusgen, the conference chair, who was an adviser to Angela Merkel and previous German  Representative at the United Nations. It will be held Feb 14-16 at the Bayerischer Hof hotel in Munich. JD Vance will be attending for the US with alarge delegation including Keith Kellogg US DJT envoy to Ukraine and Zelensky of Ukraine. German federal elections are on Feb. 23, 2025 with CDU's Merz holding a lead. Pete Hegseth Defense Secretary is not attending the conference. Hegseth has expressed views skeptical about Ukraine. Mark Rutte, the former Dutch PM is attending as Secretary General of NATO. The Munich Security Conference Report cites DJT and says- "Indeed, the notion of 'resource scarcity' has become a central premise of Republican foreign policy thinking." Germany barely spends 2% on defense. DJT wants to see 5%. DJT's comments are published in the Munich Security Report- "We were being ripped off by European nations both on trade and on NATO." "If you don't pay, we're not going to protect you." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
New risks are emerging in the shadow banking system as regulators work to make the banks safer. Banks as deposit backed financial firms are different from mutual funds, private equity and other firms that are doing more of the financing for business and home loans in the U.S. financial system. As banks deleverage responding to tighter regulation by increasing capital buffers and reducing assets, it makes the financial system safer, yet creates new risks in the shadow banking system not subject to regulation and not supported by bank deposits the way banks are. A IMF report put out in April 2015 underlines these new risks in the U.S. and European financial system. Mutual funds and exchange-traded funds now rival banks in providing financing to companies with high debt. Total bond holdings worldwide in 2014 were $9.6 trillion, increasing 25% over 2008, and the mutual funds leveraged loans increased 60% to $151 billion in the U.S., 223% in the eurozone to $126 billion, according to the IMF. The IMF points out that these mutual funds and exchange traded funds favor emerging market and corporate junk bonds, and operate in a way where they mimic each others in their investments, creating contagion. With hard to sell securities and the rapid decline in these types of funds in a panic, the effect could be to create contagion across the funds. In the mortgage lending field a similiar process of deleveraging is happening. U.S. banks share of federally guaranteed mortgages from big banks down from 61% in late 2012 to 33% in 2015, other smaller finance companies taking up 51% increasing from 24%, according to an American Enterprise Institute report. Paul Tucker, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, points out the dangers. He says policy makers and regulators are playing catchup with firms in the financial services industry who are constantly looking for gaps in the rules, a game that policymakers and regulators are likely to lose at some point....

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein points to the need for the structural changes in the U.S., Europe and China to address the serious imbalances that are at the root of the problem. This process will be painful and mean a short term drag on the economy even if the right actions are taken. The process of unwinding the imbalances will take time. Lower growth in China will be good for the bubble in real estate markets and the reduction in the trade surplus, even though this will reduce imports of European and U.S. machinery. Higher savings in the U.S. and reduction of consumer debt will slow retail sales but this is healthy for longer term growth. The same is true for savings in deficit reduction that will result in more layoffs at the local level. The government needs to have similiar action take place at the banks to end their "extend and pretend" practices and finally write off bad loans in residential and commercial real estate. There is no easy way out, no solutions that can be made without a sharing of the pain. Policy makers around the world have tried to look for painless solutions for years and this may be the end of the road. There is some action that the governments and central banks can take. Pearlstein suggests that the European Central Bank buy up some of the sovereign bonds being dumped on the market even if it means printing money. The Fed, the Bank of Japan and the central bank of China can also swap some of the Treasuries they own for European sovereign bonds. This would give time for the EU leaders to give the European Financial Stability Facility the resources and powers to replace the sovereign bonds with more reliable European bonds. The Fed can take this opportunity to sell some of its huge pile of Treasury bills into the market so that it has more room for action in future years. The U.S. government can move up the spending for infrastructure in years 8, 9, and 10 to the next 2-3 years to give some support to the economy as these changes take place. The spending decisions should be left to an independent Infrastructure Bank. See the related article by Krauthammer in the Washington Post, August 5, 2011, which provides a companion policy prescription for U.S. deficit reduction based on the work done by the Bowles-Simpson Commission and by preserving efficiency and fairness....

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT explains why the loss of jobs particularly in the auto industry to Mexico, with the experience of NAFTA passed by president Bill Clinton, has caused widespread opposition to the TPP trade agreement proposed by president Obama. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016 oppose the TPP.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump escalates the trade battle with China by increasing tariffs on $200 billion Chinese goods from 10% to 25%. The U.S. says China went back on its commitments in a 150 page agreement at the 11th hour or last minute, by deleting these commitments in all 7 chapters of this agreement. These are firm commitments sought by the U.S. in a number of areas of deep concern to the U.S. and the U.S. Trade Representative Mr. Lighthizer had already conveyed the determination of the U.S. to not relent on this. In the past China was seen to go back on its commitments and the U.S. side now wanted to ensure promises were kept. The U.S. concerns cover- theft of intellectual property and trade secrets, forced technology transfers, competition policy, access to financial services and currency manipulation.  The situation has been building up fro a decade with the Trump campaign honing in on this issue of China stealing U.S. jobs, and factory closures in the U.S., because of unfair trading practices. It also led to Mr. Trump's winning election campaign in the American midwestern states. With China seen as gaining an unfair technological advantage over the U.S., most recently over 5G telecom networks, the U.S. is not likely to back down. The U.S. is less dependent on trade with China. China is more dependent on the U.S. and a lot of manufacturing jobs in China are affected by the U.S. tariffs. This is why president Trump has decided to take a strong stand, including putting on tariffs on and additional $300 billion of Chinese goods.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. trade agreement with Mexico is for 16 years, to provide business with a stable rules environment to operate in. It includes a clause for review after 6 years. The content made in the U.S. is increased to 70% from 62.5%. This has to be made by workers earning at least $16  an hour. Aluminium and steel going into the cars has to come from the U.S. helping push U.S. steel plant capacity utilization to 80%. Labor collective bargaining is strengthened in Mexico through new provisions, a provision supported by new Mexican socialist president Obrador. Free trade in agricultural products is maintained. $4.7 billion was added in help to U.S. farmers as aid for the effects of China's tariff retaliation. New rules are set for textiles, chemicals, and steel intensive products that set requirements to qualify for tariff free import into the U.S. This is intended to help bring more jobs and investment in these industries in the U.S.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The influence of business executives who helped shape president Trump's views on Mexico, China, Export Import Bank, and other issues is covered by Stokols and Bender of WSJ. On Mexico the departure of Mike Flynn helped moderate views, Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary also provided a moderating influence. The plans are now to change NAFTA but not entirely redo the agreement. On the Export Import Bank the views of Boeing CEO Muilenburg, who explained to Trump why the Bank supported U.S. exports and how other countries had similar banks, led to the president filling the bank vacancies. On China the influence of NEC head, Gary Cohn, former president of Goldman Sachs, and other business executives, led to a less confrontational position. The president once called NATO obsolete during the campaign but he met this week with NATO secretary general Stoltenberg this week and expressed strong support for NATO after rising tensions with Russia.

LyrArc Article Gist
There are similarities in the Republican and Democratic party platforms in 2016. One area of agreement is in the reinstatement of Glass Steagall Act. That legislation made in the Depression period to separate commercial banking from investment banking was changed  when president Clinton made changes in a deal with Senators Phil Gramm and Jim Leach in 1999. The too big to fail problems of banks and the problems of investment banks during the 2008 financial crisis are attributed to the lack of Glass Steagall protections for financial stability and safety. The result is that in the post 2016 environment banks can expect a tougher regulatory environment. Another are is in trade where both parties are expected to take tougher positions to protect U.S. interests. The Republican platform calls for "better negotiated trade agreemets that put America first."

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt points out in the NYT that Hillary Clinton actually won in the popular vote by a substantial margin, by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points. He says that Democrats need to pay more attention to the working class in midwestern states- the job losses, crumbling infrastructure, and the plight of communities such as Detroit, Michigan which suffered through the bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM, and again with the foreclosure crisis, the financial crisis of the City of Detroit. With a similar situation in the neighboring states of Wisconsin and Ohio, in places like Toledo and other parts of communities facing industrial decline. While the Silicon Valley centred region powered the economy in California, and the financial industry and real estate powered New York, older midwestern communities never really recovered from a long decline stretching over 2 decades. The result was the loss of faith in Democrats among union workers and young people, leading to the loss of Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan. For most of its history the Democratic Party was based on its union and working class base including a large number of white voters. Only under Obama because of his unique candidacy was the coalition so dependent on the minorities vote. Before minorities were part of the Democratic coalition, but not in the way under the Obama candidacy. A return to its historic and normal base among whites in unions and working class communities, liberals, minorities, is a way to go back to the historic and natural base of Democratic support. In a sense dependence on tech communities for election funding and the tech booms, globalization, may have distorted Democrats sense of their historic role as champions of the working class and middle class communities throughout the country. There is now an opportunity to restore this lost mission of protecting the interests of the middle and working class who have seen huge drop in net worth as reported by Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve at the Inequality Conference on October 17, 2014-"62 million households with a net worth of $11,000 for the year 2013." Poorly covered in the media and not made the utmost priority by Democrats (or Republicans). In the words of Janet Yellen, this was in the past several decades "the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality since the Great Depression." She added the shocking words "by some estimates, income and wealth inequality near their highest levels in the past hundred years, and probably much higher than much of American history before then." Even discussion in the media goes back to the Obama coalition and treats it as a way forward for Democrats, when history shows it was different and the situation described by Yellen calls for a serious response. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's push for globalization is being perceived internationally as an effort to promote its own industries.

Clashes with the U.S. on trade have changed the perception of China in global trade compared to what it was four years ago or in 2008. Tariffs in the U.S. on Chinese imports, slowing foreign investment, inflated property prices, bad debt at banks, and shrinking working age population, are leading to slowing growth which in coming years could drop from 6.1% in 2019. The Belt and Road Initiative is also being perceived differently as it has led to increased in indebtedness of countries in Africa and Asia, debt that cannot be paid back. Much of the ebullient optimism of a few years back is no longer present. The Pew Research Center survey of 34 countries in December 2019 shows about 45% of adults surveyed lacking confidence in China's policy positions in world affairs, according to this report in the WSJ.