LyrArc Article Gist
China's huge trade surplus with the U.S. continues to grow even after President Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese imports. China's total exports have risen by 15.6% from a year earlier, higher than the 14.5% increase year over year in September. Exports to India, Hong Kong, grew by more than 20% in October over a year earlier.  By Chinese figures China's trade surplus with the U.S. of $260 billion for 10 months of 2018 is up 15% from year earlier, ready to set another record. This does not tally with what the U.S. says it is, with the U.S. estimate of the trade gap at $375.2 billion, over $1 billion each and every day. Previous administrations of both Republican and Democratic parties put up with the trade surplus or did little. President Trump has taken this up as a big issue and imposed tariffs on Chinese goods in a series of actions. The combined U.S. and Chinese tariffs now cover 60% of their trade in goods after the latest round of tit for tat tariffs. Experts say there is front loading of Chinese exports which accounts for the sharp increase in exports to beat the date when tariffs go into effect. Yet the overall increase in China's exports, with an added impetus from a stronger dollar suggests that the trade gap with the U.S. is a problem that will fester for a while till the trends are reversed.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The tariffs dispute with China escalates as China increases the tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. goods from 5-10% to 25% starting June 1st. The U.S. put its tariff increase on $200 billion of Chinese goods in effect on May 9, increasing it from 10% to 25%. The U.S. exports less to China than China does to the States by a wide margin making it possible for Mr. Trump to up the ante. Mr. Lighhizer's office says it is looking at tariffs on all remaining goods from China imported to the U.S. if China does not agree not to renege on its commitments and assurances to the U.S. in the talks on improper technology transfers and other matters. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Latest data from the U.S. Treasury shows it has collected $63 billion in tariffs over the preceding 12 months. Even though there is no agreement on trade with China, president Trump says the U.S. is benefitting from higher tariffs by tens of billions of dollars. In May he estimated tariff revenues could reach $100 billion.This report in the WSJ says this could happen if the the new tariffs of 10% on additional $300 Chinese goods imported to U.S. goes into effect on September 1. This is likely considering that China sees this in different terms than the U.S. such as its sovereignty, whereas the U.S. sees it simply in terms of fair trade. With new elections China may be simply putting things off till the election is decided as Mr. Trump has pointed out. The tally of what the U.S. Treasury gets annually if $100 billion is generated in tariffs goes something like this. Of this $30 billion was generated previously for the U.S. government, so the incremental amount is $70 billion. Of this about $16 billion goes to offset the effect of loss of farm exports to farmers, mainly soyabeans exports to China, through a rescue fund. This leaves additional $54 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Money that could conceivably be put back into infrastructure that the U.S. badly needs in mobile and fixed to improve internet speeds and move up from its low rankings compared to China and other countries. A WSJ report this week shows Germany in worse shape than the U.S., both countries having dismal status in mobile infrastructure- the U.S. at No. 37, and Australia No. 4, Canada No. 3, and even Croatia No. 9. This throws some light on why this trade dispute has become intractable, for China the right of a sovereign nation to move past middle income status even as its telecom technology with Huawei 5G is top class, and for the U.S. the right not to fall behind in advanced technologies such as Telecom. It is also why one hears so much about Huawei and why it has become a flashpoint of the conflict in trade and trade practices. It is thought Mr. Trump is conducting this trade dispute. Yet less known is the fact that prominent Republicans in Congress such as Senator Warner have stated on television talk shows that they are concerned Mr. Trump may give up too much in negotiations that lead to the U.S. not being able to compete in telecom advanced technologies that matter for competitiveness and for national security. What was treated by Bush and Obama administrations routinely without much attention to the consequences is now a top concern for Republicans and others in Congress and business. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ looks at the result of changes in supply chains away from China, and the new trading relationship with China to 2028. He says the shift to a new global supply chain that diversifies it away from concentration in China is taking place. Would taking the tariffs from 30% to 60% under a new Trump administration be a good idea? Greg Ip thinks it is a bad idea as the change is gradual and is actually taking place. It may have the unintended effect of worsening US China relations essential for global stability when it is coupled with erratic or retaliatory rhetoric. Rhetoric that appears to China that it is being singled out in world trade beyond what are changes that have taken place with Japan in the past in trade. The Biden administration is for good reasons working to restore a balanced yet stable relationship with China. Apple is shifting production of 25% of iPhones to India. Samsung is investing more in Vietnam. The trade deficit with Mexico has reached $151 billion twice as large as in 2017. And $100 billion with Vietnam three times as large as 2017. The US trade deficit with China has dropped from $381 billion to $281 billion in the last 12 months, the Commerce Department reports show. And from $1.1 trillion with the whole world from $1.2 trillion for the last 12 months, 4% of US GDP. Overall the Trump era tariffs of 30% have not reduced the US  trade deficit substantially but has shifted American and European foreign investment to India, Vietnam, Mexico and other countries as well as to the home country. Over time the supply chain would become truly diversified as India makes great strides to become the third largest economy with new infrastructure by 2030. The head emeritus of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, Joerg Wuttke, says the pressure to export will be high for China as its economy shifts more to manufacturing from construction. Most Chinese companies are producing more than internal demand in China, and most companies in solar are losing money, in wind turbines and solar all are losing money, Wuttke says. This means China will double down and increase its investments in Mexico, Vietnam, Morocco and other countries so that it can send its products to the US through third countries that do the final export. One expert even says removing a few screws here and some there, find a different supplier, and shipping to a third party for final export that makes it not 100% Chinese content, the pressure for that is high. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. and China sign Phase 1 of the trade agreement in a sign of reduction of trade tensions between the two countries. Difficult issues of state subsidies under China's state enterprise model of development, and technological competition were put off for the future. China made the deal possible by agreeing to double its purchases of agricultural products, and offering to purchase about $200 billion in American goods and services over the next two years. This gives relief to farmers, a key part of Mr.Trump's support base. This also helps achieve a key Trump and U.S. goal of cutting the U.S. trade deficit with China quickly, just as happened decades ago with Japan.  See the related article and link on how for the first time in decades China's trade surplus with the U.S. is now set on a path for permanent decline. It dropped significantly in 2019 by 12.5% even though China's imports from the U.S. dropped by 21%, based on Chinese customs data released for 2019. With China increasing these imports significantly and the U.S. holding on to tariffs of 25% on $250 billon of China's exports to the U.S. which are outside the Phase 1 agreement, the downward course is set for the next few years for correction of a dangerous trade imbalance. That imbalance was allowed to develop over successive Republican and Democratic administrations. China already has the European Union as its first leading trading partner and south east Asia as its second. China plans to not be so closely intertwined with the U.S. in trade, and yet preserve its state sponsored development model and drive to compete in technology. China's increased purchases from the U.S. of $200 billon are broken down in terms of farm products- $32 billion, manufactured goods- $80 billion, energy products- $50 billion, services $35 billion. In effect the U.S. gets its goal of cutting the unsustainable China trade surplus quickly and with certainty in 3-5 years. China uses the period to transition for less trade linkage with the U.S. yet preserving its state sponsored model of development and drive for technological advancement.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Even though volatility is high in stock markets, the U.S. stock market has rebounded to levels in August 2019. The level on March 10, 2020 after effects of the coronavirus on the global economy was for the DJIA average in the U.S. to be at the level it was on August 14, 2019, as shown on the graph in the WSJ, in the neighborhood of 25,000. In the last quarter of 2019 there were steep gains in the Dow Jones averages that could not be fully explained, these gains have disappeared. Considering the suddenness of the crisis from the coronavirus in China, and the double whammy of impact on global manufacturing supply chains of first the tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S., followed by the coronavirus, the impact on stock markets seen in this overall context is comprehensible. Particularly the sharp gains in the last quarter of 2019 which now appear to be muted. There is also some good news for economies such as China and India, which are large oil importing countries, and the rest of Asia, in the sharp drop in oil prices that helps cushion some of its impact on the global economy. For the U.S. this also happens at a time when the economy is in much stronger shape than at any time in the last ten years. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, gives insights into the Chinese position in trade war with the U.S.  China has its own internal groups which support China being able to take a leadership role in world affairs. Xi Jinping made giving China a prominent role in the world a feature of his presidency. China  has this internal audience and its own sense that China's resurgence was won with hard work and cooperation, plus dedication of the Chinese people. In the past Japan and South Korea also used state subsidized industries, and subsidies to gain leadership in key business sectors involving high technology. China would see this state subsidies model as its own model of development. From this standpoint the U.S. demands on subsidies as unfair competition could be seen as changing a key part of its economic model.  Asking China to put everything in writing and show tangible proof of enforcement as the U.S. insisted in talks, was too much for the Chinese side. China said trust us to do this, and lift the tariffs based on our verbal assurances. The U.S. having seen decades of no progress on this point, wanted tangible proof before tariffs were lifted. Added to the demands on subsidies were the demands for no more of what the U.S. calls stealing of U.S. technology through forced transfer of technology by U.S. firms as a condition to operate in Chinese markets. With the U.S. lagging in 5G technology and Huawei ahead the issue resonates on the U.S. side. Add to this Mr. Trump's key voter base includes the former Democratic party supporting workers who have shifted to him because of trade agreements and policies of Clinton and Obama that hurt American workers through seemingly endless closure of manufacturing plants from Chinese competition.   ...

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
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
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
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
Researchers David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, and David Dorn of the Center for Monetary and Fiscal Studies in Madrid, in independent research, studied the impact of trade on 722 clusters of interrelated counties in the U.S. They focussed on the surge in Chinese imports and found a pattern. Counties with higher exposure to Chinese import growth showed higher unemployment and higher expenditures by the government for unemployment benefits, food stamps and disability benefits. Their calculations show the increased government payments amount to one to two thirds of the gains from trade with China. This does not include the losses suffered by people losing jobs who deplete savings as they look for new jobs. Hanson studied the effects of trade and Chinese imports in the 1990's and found the effects were relatively small. This time the effects are large and show counties that lacked local investments in industrial machinery and technologies in which China was still playing catchup such as Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois, and Boeing in Everett, Washington, were most susceptible to higher jobless rates and in need of government support payments. Autor and Hanson found that from 2000-2007, communities in the 75th percentile- ones with greater exposure to Chinese import growth than 75% of all communities- saw a manufacturing jobless rate of about one-third more than communities in the 25th percentile. The government payments mean higher taxes or larger deficits are needed to support these communities, and long periods of unemployment reduce the incentive to work. Michael Spence, a Nobel prize winning economist from New York University, says the world has never seen such a rapid pace of growth as China experienced between 2000-2011, with rates approaching 12% in some years, making past experience and prevailing theories on trade an insufficient guide to what is happening....

LyrArc Article Gist
A shift in priorities away from focussing on high growth to lower sustainable growth was announced by China's premier Wen Jiabao at the National People's Congress, China's parliament, in March 2012. This shift will reduce investment in infrastructure, power generation and exports, which will affect the level of imports of commodities from commodity producing nations in the Middle East, Australia, Canada and Brazil. It should increase imports of software, computers, entertainment, tourism and high tech goods from the U.S. and Europe. Chinese leaders have said they would make this kind of shift for some years now but growth has consistently increased more than the target rate, and domestic consumption as a percentage of the economy has actually decreased in the last decade. Now 9-10% growth rates may be a thing of the past and the target of 7.5% set this year may be actually closer to the real figure. The Chinese leaders have belatedly realized the need to make these changes now because slowing markets in Europe -which is seeing declining growth and high unemployment- and in the U.S., make the issue impossible to avoid. Wen told the Congress: "Accelerating the transformation of the pattern of economc development... is both a long term task and our most pressing task at present... Domestically it has become more urgent but also more difficult... to alleviate the problem of unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable development." This is his way of saying that its unavoidable and better to start in earnest now, and at the same time recognizing the resistance to change from the stateowned companies and the other interests who have benefitted from surging growth, and now occupy a central role in the power structure. An opinion article in the People's Daily, China's official newspaper, said: "imperfect reforms are to be preferred to a crisis caused by no reforms." The World Bank's president Zoellick is respected by the Chinese leaders. He also urged them to make changes now. The recent report of the DRC, China's planning research arm, and the World Bank, also laid out the new direction away from a focus on infrastructure to domestic consumption. The fear is sudden deceleration in the absence of policy action. The impact of this will be negative for commodities over time, leading to slower growth in Australia, Brazil, and Canada. It should boost imports from Europe and the U.S. of high tech, consumer, pharmaceutical goods over time....

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. ...

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
Hillary Clinton narrowly loses the Michigan primary to Bernie Sanders in March 2016, as the Sanders campaign focusses on Clinton's support for trade agreements that hurt American workers and lead to loss of manufacturing jobs. About three fifths of voters in the Michigan primary considered this a major issue. Many less educated younger workers see their job prospects diminish and wages drop with free trade that hurts American manufacturing jobs. Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement with Mexico, and as a member of the Obama administration Clinton supported the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement, later opposing TPP when she left the cabinet. Sentiment against trade that hurts manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is strongest in midwestern states such as Michigan, Ohio and Illinois. This was also a major issue benefitting the Liberals under Justin Trudeau who won in Canada's industrial Ontario province which has suffered hollowing out and loss of manufacturing jobs under the Conservative Harper administration. In the U.S. the issue goes back to the Clinton Administration for two decades. New jobs created by Apple, Google, and other tech companies pale in comparison with the industrial jobs created in another era that benefitted working class families. This issue and high unemployment or under employment, lower wages for working class families, was a major issue in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. Widening wealth disparities, and lack of upward mobility, high tution and healthcare costs for ordinary families, dominated the campaign in the U.S....