Verdict is in: “Phase 1” Trade Deal with China is a total failure.

August 6, 2020

Trade data for the month of June was released by the Department of Commerce yesterday, so we now have a full six months of results of the “Phase 1” trade deal with China.  As I predicted when the deal was signed in January, the deal is a total failure.

You may have heard stories in the news, as I did, about how the Chinese were beginning to make progress on catching up to the goals established by this deal.  I had my doubts, so I was anxious to see the real data.  Here it is, year-to-date through June:  Phase 1 China Trade Deal 2020 YTD.

The deal established goals for the Chinese import of American goods in four categories, using 2017 trade results as a baseline:  manufactured goods, energy goods (like oil, gas, coal, etc.), agriculture goods, and total goods.  The goal was for them to increase their imports substantially in 2020, and then even more in 2021.  In the spreadsheet, I broke down those goals into monthly goals, ramping them up at a rate that would meet those goals by the end of the year.

Through May, the results were abysmal.  They failed to meet the goal in any category of product.  In fact, only their import of energy products even exceeded the 2017 baseline.  You’d think that if China were anxious to meet the goals in order to avoid further threatened tariffs, they’d at least make some good faith effort that they could point to as progress.  So what happened in June?  Their imports actually declined in every category.  They didn’t even meet the 2017 baseline in a single category.

A good faith effort to show progress?  The June results are exactly the opposite.  They are a slap in the face.  The Chinese are taunting the Trump administration – betting that they’ll be too distracted with other events to take action.

It’s time to put an end to this stupid trade deal and follow through with the threatened 25% across-the-board tariffs on all Chinese exports to the U.S.  Trump was elected, in large part, to make real progress in cutting America’s trade deficit and bringing manufacturing back to the U.S.  Aside from tariffs on half of Chinese exports and a new trade deal to replace NAFTA, little has been accomplished.  All momentum on the trade front was killed when Trump signed the “Phase 1” deal with China.  Three-and-a-half years have been frittered away.  His supporters are getting disillusioned by the lack of progress.  If Trump loses the election, it will be due in large part to his failure to fix our trade mess.

There’s no more time to waste.  It’s time to declare this deal a failure and impose the tariffs that were put on hold.  In addition, it’s time for Trump to get serious with other Asian nations and the European Union as well.  Slap all of them with tariffs and start making real progress in bringing our manufacturing jobs back.


Protests against “systemic racism” are off the mark.

August 3, 2020

For a web site dedicated to raising awareness of the economic consequences of population growth, this topic may seem “off the mark.”  But bear with me.

The “Black Lives Matter” movement has evolved beyond protesting the brutal tactics used by some police when dealing with the black community to include “systemic racism” in broad terms.  Exactly what “systemic racism” is can be difficult to pin down and varies depending on who you ask.  There was a time when racism was codified and blatant.  Blacks were barred from voting in many places prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Segregation was practiced openly throughout society, limiting black access to virtually everything.

But all of that has changed.  The right to vote is secured.  Discrimination is now illegal everywhere, but I won’t deny that it still exists.  There are still subtle ways in which anti-discrimination laws are skirted, and this is the “systemic racism” that is the target of protesters.  I recently heard a protestor say (or perhaps I read it on a sign at a protest – I can’t remember exactly) that “we’re not just here to change laws, but to change attitudes and eliminate all sytemic racism,” or words to that effect.

Good luck with that.  Whatever “systemic racism” still exists is because people are prejudiced, and admonishing people for it won’t change them.  It’s likely to have the opposite effect.  People only change their prejudices out of necessity.

Take World War II for example.  Perhaps nothing, at least up to that point, did more to begin the process of changing minds and integrating blacks into society than the war.  It was an “all hands on deck” event.  Every last male of fighting age was needed in the service.  Every woman was needed to man the factories.  Even school-age kids were needed to collect scrap metal, rubber and even to glean the fields for milkweed to stuff life jackets for sailors.  Winning the war was far more important than silly prejudices.  Sure, there were still some segregated units like the Tuskegee airmen, but blacks could fight as well as whites and they all bled the same color.  A lot of attitudes began to change.

In 1970, in spite of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the state of Alabama was still highly segregated and the University of Alabama football team was no different.  Bear Bryant had been head coach there since 1958 and steadfastly refused to recruit black players.  Every player on the Alabama team was white.  That year, Alabama took on the University of Southern California, a team that was fully integrated with many black players, led by Sam “Bam” Cunningham, a bruising fullback who led USC to a humiliating 42-21 lopsided win over Bryant’s team.  Like any good coach, Bryant hated losing and he could see the handwriting on the wall.  Afterwards, Bryant was overheard to say, “I want some players like those.”  He could see the folly of not recruiting the best players regardless of whether they were white or black.  The following year, Alabama fielded its first black player.  By 1973, one third of the team’s roster was black.  Bryant had changed out of necessity.  He wanted to win.

The “systemic racism” that persists today and all of its effects – chronic poverty, low wages, lousy schools, drugs, gangs, high rates of incarceration and hopelessness – won’t change because of protests against it.  It will only change out of necessity.  It will only change when every single person who wants to work is needed to make the economy function.  Instead, today, what the Federal Reserve defines as “full employment” – typically somewhere in the range of 4-5 percent – still leaves millions of Americans out of work, and those unemployed are disproportionately black.  Of those who are employed, few have any upward mobility – held back by a substandard education.

There is absolutely nothing that has hit the black community harder than America’s trade policy.  I don’t believe it was intended to be racist, but the results speak otherwise.  Aside from the vestiges of the automobile industry, American manufacturing has been totally decimated, shipping millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs overseas and putting millions of people – disproportionately blacks – out of work.  (It’s worth noting that virtually all of those jobs have landed in Asia and Europe.  Africa has been left completely out of the picture.)  Imagine if that were reversed.  Imagine if manufacturers had to scour the country to find workers to staff their production lines.  It’d take every last worker left in America to satisfy the demand.  Companies wouldn’t give a damn if those workers were black or white or purple, or if they came from Mars.  All they care about is making money.  Petty prejudices would quickly fall by the wayside, just like they did in World War II and like they did at the University of Alabama.  Every black person – hell, every person, regardless of race – could find a job making good money and good benefits.  It’d quickly break the back of the cycle that has kept blacks trapped in poverty.

America’s trade policy is racist.  Protesting loosely-defined notions of “systemic racism” is off the mark.  If protesters want to make real headway in putting an end to “systemic racism,” they need to begin taking on America’s trade policy and the politicians who do the bidding of their corporate benefactors by sustaining this totally unfair system.  It doesn’t matter if those politicians are Democrats or Republicans because both parties have been complicit.  Only when a balance of trade is restored and our manufacturing jobs are brought back home will they see any meaningful improvement.

 

 


Trump vs. Biden on Immigration

July 22, 2020

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-immigration-factbox/factbox-trump-and-biden-take-sharply-different-paths-on-immigration-idUSKCN24L122

The above-linked article is a comparison of Biden’s positions on immigration and Trump’s position and record on the same issue.  The article has a pro-Biden bias, casting his positions as having compassion for immigrants, while casting Trump’s positions as being more heartless and cruel.  Putting aside that bias, however, the comparison is relatively accurate.

Before going further, for the benefit of those new to this web site, my purpose is to bring attention to an economic consequence of population growth that has escaped economists because of their refusal to even consider the subject.  Simply put, beyond some optimum population density, further population growth begins to erode per capita consumption and, with it, employment.  While the macro economy continues to grow, it doesn’t grow at the same pace as the population.  The result is a bigger pie, but smaller slices for everyone.  Incrementally worsening poverty is the inescapable result.

With that said, let’s now talk about immigration.  Many claims are made about the supposed benefits of immigration and why it should continue.  It’s often said that immigrants are the engine of our economy, that they account for 25% of all new business start-ups, for example.  Just in the last few days, I heard it said that 19% of all long-haul truck drivers in America are immigrants.  Immigrants are doctors, engineers, scientists, professors, and so on.  At the other end of the scale, immigrants pick our crops, clean our hotel rooms, and do all of the other jobs that Americans seem loathe to do.

Regarding that last point, there’s some element of truth.  Few Americans work those jobs, but is it because they don’t like to work hard, or is it because the pay is too low?  I’d argue that many American workers would eagerly leave minimum wage jobs to do those other jobs if they paid more.  The wages are low because of the unlimited supply of immigrants who see those wages as a huge step up from what they can aspire to in their own countries.

As for those other workers – the entrepreneurs, the professional people, the long-haul truckers and skilled tradesmen, it’s true that a significant percentage are immigrants, but that’s only because a significant percentage of the population is immigrants.  They’re no more likely to fill those roles than native-born Americans.  Immigrants don’t possess any unique skills or powers to boost the economy.  They’re just people, and they want the same thing that all people want – to make a living and provide for their families.

Another claim often made is that America is enriched by the diversity that immigration provides.  Diversity, it is said, is a source of strength for our economy.  America is enriched by people with different backgrounds and different perspectives.

It can’t be argued that it isn’t interesting to learn about different cultures.  But the claim that diversity is a source of economic strength?  Baloney.  That’s a myth, invented and perpetuated by those who stand to benefit from never-ending population growth.  Who are they?  Corporations.  More people equate to more total sales and a bigger bottom line, while all of the negative consequences of population growth be damned.  Don’t believe me?  Go to the CIA World Fact Book web site and bring up a list of countries ranked by GDP per capita.  You’ll find the top of the list dominated by countries practically devoid of diversity.  Ranking high on the list is Ireland, a nation with virtually no diversity but, in terms of trade balance per capita, kicks America’s ass in trade far worse than any other country.  Diversity has nothing to do with economic prowess.

In the final analysis, the ONLY effect of immigration is to grow the population.  Growing the population makes sense only if you believe that we need more people – bigger and more crowded cities, more traffic, more demand on resources, more carbon emitters,  more trash in the landfills, and so on.  Worst of all, if you believe in the premise of this web site – that a growing population will doom the U.S. to worsening poverty by eroding per capita consumption – further population growth is tantamount to slow-motion economic suicide.

Joe Biden is an advocate for more immigration and, thus, more rapid population growth.  That position isn’t surprising and it’s not something unique to Democrats.  Virtually every Republican takes the same stance, though they tend to pay more lip service to opposing illegal immigration.  Both parties are in agreement on immigration.  Why?  Because that’s the stance that their corporate benefactors pay them to take.

Only very recently have some environmentalists begun to awaken to the fact that they’ve been hoodwinked by the faux-environmentalists who would have you believe that the planet can be saved from the vast array of negative consequences of worsening over-population through technological gimmicks like cutting carbon emissions, paving the way for more “sustainable development,” a corporate euphemism for more population growth.  In light of this awakening, policies that promote population growth may soon seem out-of-step with the reality of the challenges that confront this planet.

Trump is unique in being opposed to both legal and illegal immigration alike.  If we can believe him, his motivation is his belief that immigrants hold down wages and take jobs from American workers.  Is there an element of racism?  He denies it.

I wish Trump were a more likable person – more eloquent, more compassionate, less hot-tempered, a better role model.  Would I vote for Biden over Trump if Biden took a hard line on immigration like Trump?  You bet, especially if he also favored restoring a balance of trade through the use of tariffs, as Trump does.  If there were no differences in their positions on these two critical issues, I’d vote for Biden in a heartbeat.  But that’s not the case.

 

 


Token Bump in Exports to China in May Falls Far Short of “Phase 1 Trade Deal” Goals

July 4, 2020

Trade data released by the Commerce Department on Thursday for the month of May reveals that China bumped up its imports from the U.S. slightly, but still fell far short of the goals of the “Phase 1 Trade Deal” signed with the U.S. in January.  Here’s the data (source:  USA Trade Online):  Phase 1 China Trade Deal 2020 YTD.

This deal sets goals for Chinese imports of American goods for four different categories of products:  manufactured products, energy products, agriculture products, and total products, using 2017 Chinese imports of these products as the baseline for increases.  Through May, we’re now five months into this deal.  That’s 20 opportunities to meet the monthly goal for each category of product.  So far, China has not met one single goal.  In fact, in May, for the first time, China exceeded the 2017 baseline for one category of product.  They imported $1.249 billion in energy products vs. the 2017 baseline of $0.758 billion, but still fell short of the goal for May of $1.943 billion.

Year-to-date, China is behind its commitments by the following amounts:

  • manufactured products – 25.7% below goal
  • energy products – 69.6% below goal
  • agriculture products – 60.6% below goal
  • total goods – 35.9% below goal

This is pathetic.  At this point, one can only conclude that, rather than trying to live up to the deal and boost its purchases of American goods, China is actually making a concerted effort to reduce its purchases.

In October of 2018, the monthly trade deficit with China hit a record of $43 billion.  In May of this year, that deficit was down to $27 billion.  But the “Phase 1 Trade Deal” gets no credit for that decrease.  In December of 2019 – the last month before the deal was signed, the deficit with China was $24.8 billion.  All of the drop in the trade deficit with China is thanks to the 25% tariffs that are in effect for half of all Chinese imports.  The “Phase 1 Trade Deal” has had absolutely no impact on further reducing that deficit.

A huge part of the “Make America Great Again” promise was to reduce the trade deficit and bring manufacturing jobs back home.  There has been virtually no progress.  In May, the deficit in manufactured goods fell just $1 billion shy of the record deficit of $75.8 billion set in December, 2018.  Trump has squandered his term with making fruitless deals.  The deficit with Mexico is worse than ever, hitting a record in March.  The progress made in reducing the deficit with China (through the implementation of tariffs) was offset by increases in other countries, most notably Vietnam and Mexico, and that progress ground to a halt with the signing of the “Phase 1 Trade Deal.”  There’s been absolutely zero progress in reducing the deficit with the EU.  To date, there hasn’t even been an attempt.

Trump needs to kill the “Phase 1” deal now and extend the tariffs across the board to all Chinese products to demonstrate that he’s still committed to the “MAGA” promise if he’s to have any hope of being re-elected.  Far too much time has been wasted, but it’s not too late.


How Population Density Drives Trade Imbalances

June 15, 2020

Now that an analysis of America’s 2019 trade results has revealed that population density is the biggest factor in driving our trade imbalance – just as we’ve seen in every year previous – it’s time for an explanation of how that happens.  How is it that something that seems so unrelated to the economy and trade can have such a dramatic effect, dwarfing the effect of other parameters that would seem to be more influential – things like wages, currency exchange rates, productivity and so on?

Population density is, by far and away, the single most dominant parameter in the field of economics, but one that goes unrecognized by economists because of their cowardly refusal to give any consideration to the subject.  The reason for that dates back to the mocking of economists by other academics in the wake of the seeming failure of the theories of economist Malthus regarding population growth.

The density of the population in which you live has an enormous impact on your ability to consume products.  That impact varies depending on the product in question.  In the case of food, there’s no impact at all.  Everyone needs to consume a certain amount of calories each day to survive.   At the other end of the spectrum, the impact on the consumption of housing, or dwelling space, is huge.  For example, the average citizen in Japan – a nation ten times more densely populated than the U.S. – lives in a dwelling space that’s less than one third the size of the average American.  When people are packed together so tightly, there’s simply no room for anything else.  So the average Japanese citizen’s consumption of everything used in building, furnishing and maintaining a home is less than one third of the average American’s.  Actually, it’s even worse than that when you realize that a much greater percentage of Japanese families occupy multi-family housing, like apartments.  In those cases, walls and foundations are shared, ceilings become floors for the apartment above, etc.

The effect on every single product you can imagine is to reduce its per capita consumption.  Cars?  There’s no room to drive or park them for most people in Japan.  You’ve all seen news stories of Japanese trains carrying commuters literally packed together so tightly that they can barely breathe.

Boats?  In spite of the fact that Japan is an island nation, their per capita consumption of boats is close to zero.  The same is true for Denmark, a nation consisting of one large peninsula and many islands, but which is also very densely populated.

Lawn care and gardening equipment?  On a per capita basis, lawns and gardens virtually don’t exist in Japan.  Sporting goods?  There’s little room for golf or tennis or anything else that requires much real estate.  Even things like electronics are affected, since such cramped quarters as you find in places like Japan force people to share them.

So you get the idea.  A dense population absolutely strangles per capita consumption.  On the other hand, when someone in Japan (or China, or Germany, or South Korea, or any densely populated nation) goes to work, they are every bit as productive as an American worker.  It takes no more or less labor to manufacture something, like a car, for example, in Japan than it does in America.

People make things and people buy things and that, in a nutshell, is what makes an economy tick.  But what happens if people aren’t able to buy as much as they’re able to make?  Now you have a situation where the supply and demand for labor are out-of-balance.  Less demand for labor translates into higher unemployment.  Higher unemployment means lower wages for everyone, and it necessitates greater government spending to provide a safety net for the unemployed.  It’s a recipe for disaster for any nation’s economy.

However, there’s an escape mechanism for nations that find themselves in this fix.  They can put their excess labor capacity to work making products for export.  Of course, that requires a trading partner who’s willing to share their market.  If that partner has a shortage of labor – perhaps because they are very sparsely populated and lack the labor force needed to manufacture everything they need – then it can be a beneficial situation, one that is likely financed by the sparsely populated nation selling natural resources like food, oil, lumber, minerals, etc. to the densely populated partner.

But what if that trading partner isn’t sparsely populated and has no shortage of labor?  To welcome imports from that densely populated nation will inevitably put its own people out of work and create a big trade deficit.  It’s absolutely inescapable.  The densely populated nation won’t buy products from the less densely populated nation in equal measure because they can’t even consume their own domestic manufacturing capacity, much less take in more from other countries.

Either a densely populated nation sustains its economy by manufacturing for export, or it lapses into abject poverty because of extreme unemployment.  Look around the world and you’ll see that this is true, although I should point out that there are a couple of exceptions.  Many small island nations, though they tend to be densely populated, maintain vibrant economies that are based on tourism.  And some small but densely populated nations have oceans of oil beneath their feet and trade that oil for all the other products its citizens require.  But these are the exceptions.  Any densely populated nation of any size is either dirt poor or is totally dependent on manufacturing for export.   Attempting to trade freely with such nations is economic suicide.  A big trade deficit and a loss of manufacturing jobs is inevitable.

What is the point of trade policy that only serves to erode our economy?  The purpose of trade is to make available products that can’t be obtained domestically.  For a nation like the U.S. – big and rich in resources – there isn’t much we need.  Tropical fruits, out-of-season produce, and a few rare minerals are examples.  But manufactured products?  There are none that we can’t make domestically and more efficiently, especially when you factor in the five billion barrels of oil burned annually by ships bringing in products from half-way around the world.  It makes absolutely no sense.

Tariffs are the only remedy available to maintain a balance of trade.  Trade deals don’t work, because there is no motivation for a nation dependent on manufacturing for export to abide by them.  The reduction in the trade deficit with China is proof that they work.  Those tariffs need to be expanded to include all Chinese imports, not just half of them like we have now.  Beyond that, their implementation needs to be spread to other densely populated nations that prey on the American market to sustain their bloated labor forces – Germany, South Korea, Ireland, Vietnam and other Asian and European nations.

Virtually every problem in America, beyond unemployment and low wages, in which a lack of funding is a factor, can ultimately be traced back to our trade deficit – inadequate funding of schools, neglected infrastructure maintenance and improvements, inner city blight, health care – the list can go on and on.  Ultimately, the federal budget deficit and national debt can be attributed to the federal spending needed to offset the financial drain of the trade deficit.

And still economists keep their heads in the sand and insist that population growth plays no role in economics.


China Fails to Meet “Phase 1 Trade Deal” Goals Again in April

June 5, 2020

As I predicted at the outset, the “Phase 1” trade deal with China, formalized by President Trump and Chinese dictator Xi in early January, is proving to be a total waste of time in the push toward achieving a balance of trade with China.  Once again in April, as it has done every month so far, China has not only failed to live up to its promises to increase imports of American goods, it hasn’t even met the baseline of matching its 2017 imports of U.S. goods.  Here’s the table I created to track their progress, updated through April (the most recent data available):  Phase 1 China Trade Deal 2020 YTD.  Their imports were up very slightly in April, but are still well short of even the 2017 baseline.

What are working well are the tariffs on Chinese imports which Trump was smart enough to leave in place until China demonstrated its sincerity in abiding by the “Phase 1” trade deal.  Imports from China remain approximately 40% below their 2018 level.  Through the first third of 2020, the trade deficit with China is on track to fall to its lowest level in ten years.  Had Trump not implemented the “Phase 1” deal and instead had enacted across-the-board tariffs on all Chinese imports, as he was on the verge of doing before signing the deal, we may very well have been on track to wipe out the deficit with China altogether.

Trade deals don’t work.  Tariffs do.  We have no control over exports because we have no control over what other countries are willing to buy from us.  But tariffs give us total control over imports – what we buy from them.  Trade policy should be the simplest policy that any president deals with, yet every one of them makes it as complicated as possible.  We make the same mistakes over and over and American workers pay the price.  It makes me sick.


Trade Deficits Not Caused by Low Wages

May 19, 2020

In my previous posts, we’ve seen that trade imbalances are caused by disparities in population density, and that low wages don’t appear to be a factor at all.  To prove the point, let’s now look at America’s trade with the 20 poorest nations on earth and contrast that with it’s trade with the 20 wealthiest nations.  Surely, if low wages cause trade imbalances, we’ll have big trade deficits with the poorest nations where wages are the lowest.  Here’s the list:  trade with 20 poorest nations, 2019.

As you can see, if anything, the U.S. tends to have a very tiny surplus of trade with such nations, not a deficit.  The reason for the surplus is foreign aid.  All aid is booked as exports.  The fact is that the U.S. essentially engages in no trade whatsoever with these poor nations.

Now look at U.S. trade with the 20 wealthiest nations:  trade with 20 richest nations, 2019.  Now we do see some trade deficits – some big ones – with Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, Taiwan, Sweden, Germany and Austria, in that order.  Ireland and Switzerland – the two nations on this list with whom the U.S. has the biggest trade deficits per capita – are actually wealthier than the U.S.  The others aren’t far behind.

How can this be?  If companies move manufacturing offshore in search of the lowest cost of labor, why do we have virtually no trade at all with the poorest nations, and have massive trade deficits with some of the richest?  Look again at the list of the wealthiest nations.  The average population density of those nations with whom we have deficits is 565 people/square mile – six times more densely populated than the U.S.  The rest of the list is a mish-mash of oil exporters, low population density countries, and a couple – the Netherlands and Belgium – that, as we previously established, are anomalies because of how imports and exports are booked for those countries.

If anything, these two lists prove that there is a relationship between wages and trade imbalance, but the cause and effect is exactly the opposite of what you’ve been told.  Low wages don’t cause trade deficits.  Trade deficits cause high wages.  It only makes sense.  Manufacturing creates a high demand for labor which drives wages up.  Any nation whose economy has a strong manufacturing sector is going to be a wealthy nation.  It may start out as a poor nation, but quickly grows in wealth as its manufacturing sector grows.

Trade imbalances are determined by whether or not a nation’s manufacturing output is absorbed by its domestic economy, or whether it is dependent on growing its manufacturing sector beyond that point in order to gainfully employ its labor force.  We’ll more fully explore what causes that situation in an upcoming post.

 


America’s Best Trading Partners in 2019

May 15, 2020

We saw in my previous post that the list of America’s twenty worst trading partners in 2019, in terms of per capita trade deficit in manufactured goods, was dominated by very densely populated countries.  Only three of the twenty were less densely populated than the U.S.  Now we’ll look at the other end of the spectrum.  Man-for-man (or person-for-person), which countries buy the most American-made products?  Here they are:  Top 20 Per Capita Surpluses, 2019.

While the average population density of our worst trading partners is 524 people/square mile, the average population density of our best trading partners is 208 people/square mile.  The list includes some very large and very small countries.  The combined population density, the total population of these countries divided by their total land mass, is only 20 people/square mile.  The list also include seven net oil exporters.  As discussed in an earlier post, it’s almost automatic that the U.S. has a trade surplus with oil exporters because all oil world-wide is priced in U.S. dollars.  It leaves those countries with no choice but to buy American products in order to use those dollars.  America’s biggest source of imported oil is Canada, so that factors into their position high up on this list, but the bigger factor is their very low population density – only eleven people/square mile.

Once again, The Netherlands and Belgium appear on this list in spite of their very high population density, but that’s an anomaly caused by their position as the only port on the Atlantic-side of Europe and how exports from and imports into that port are booked.

The average increase in our trade surplus with these nations over the past ten years is only 36%.  That barely keeps pace with the rate of inflation, meaning that our trade surpluses have been stagnant, while the trade deficits with our worst trading partners has risen by 148% over the same time period.

The average purchasing power parity (or “PPP”) of the nations on this list is $43,900.  Take away tiny Oman, the wealthiest nation on earth (and one of the smallest), and the average drops to $39,600 – almost exactly the same as the average for our twenty worst trade partners.  Clearly, how rich or poor a nation is (or how high or low their workers’ wages) has no bearing on the balance of trade.  Whether we have a trade surplus or trade deficit with any given nation is determined almost solely by population density (and also whether a nation is an oil exporter).  To drive home that point, in my next post we’ll look at our balance of trade with the poorest, lowest-wage nations vs. the wealthiest, highest-wage nations.  The results are an eye-opener.

 


America’s Worst Trade Partners in 2019

May 11, 2020

In a previous post, we looked at a list of America’s biggest trade deficits and China was at the top.  But China is a very big country with one fifth of the world’s population – more than four times the population of the U.S.  Sheer size alone accounts for much of that deficit.  But which countries, man-for-man (or person for person, if you prefer) do the most damage to the U.S. economy by siphoning away manufacturing jobs through a big trade imbalance?  To determine that, we need a list of our worst trade deficits in per capita terms.  So here is a list of our twenty worst per capita trade deficits in 2019:  Top 20 Per Capita Deficits, 2019.

Little Ireland is at the very top of list, with a $9,615 per capita surplus in manufactured goods with the U.S. that is nearly three times the size of the next worst on the list – Switzerland.  If we assume that an average manufacturing job pays $50,000 per year, and that two thirds of the cost to manufacture something is labor, then the math tells us that for every eight citizens of Ireland an American citizen has lost his/her job.  Thankfully, there are only 5.2 million people in Ireland, so the damage done to the American economy’s manufacturing sector by Ireland is limited to “only” 650,000 jobs.  But think of that.  America has lost 650,000 manufacturing jobs to tiny Ireland.  No wonder Ireland is the wealthiest nation on the list – significantly more wealthy than the U.S. in terms of purchasing power parity (or “PPP”).

The list is noteworthy for other reasons.

  1.  This list is dominated by wealthy countries.  The average PPP of the nations on this list was almost $38,000 in 2018.  The average of the top ten on this list is almost $47,000 – on a par with the U.S.  It’s the same phenomenon we saw on the list of our biggest deficits in absolute dollar terms.  Clearly, low wages play no role at all in driving our trade deficit.
  2. Exactly half of the nations on this list are members of the European Union.  Another, Switzerland, is a European country, though not a member of the EU.
  3. On average, America’s per capita trade deficit with these twenty nations has grown by 148% over the past ten years, led by Vietnam and Slovakia.  Only one has declined – Israel.  (All of that decline has happened in the past two years.)
  4. Noteworthy for its absence from the list is China.  China has been on the list every year since I began publishing this list in 2010, though near the bottom of the list.  But this year they’re gone, falling to number 25.  Why?  Because of the effect that Trump’s tariffs on China have had on reducing the trade deficit with them.

The most noteworthy takeaway from this list, however, is this:  with only three exceptions, the nations on this list are very densely populated.  The average population density of these twenty nations is 524 people/square mile – more than 5-1/2 times as densely populated as the United States.  Regardless of whether we look at the balance of trade in absolute dollar terms or in per capita terms – no matter how we look at it – population density pops out as the overriding factor in driving trade imbalances.

In the case of Ireland, it must be recognized that there is another factor.  Ireland is a tax haven for companies.  They get a free ride in Ireland.  It’s a grossly unfair trade practice designed to siphon companies away from the U.S.  It’s unbelievable that the U.S. continues to turn a blind eye to this shake-down.  Ireland is growing rich at America’s expense.

Before we explore exactly why population density is such a huge factor, we’ll take a look at the other end of the spectrum – our best trade partners in 2019 – the nations who, man-for-man, are the best customers for American-made products.  That’ll be the subject of the next post.  Stay tuned.


China Reneging on Phase 1 Trade Deal

May 7, 2020

China isn’t living up to its commitments under the “Phase 1” trade deal it signed with Trump in early January.  It’s time for Trump to call China on the carpet.  Here are the year-to-date results through March (released by the Commerce Department on Tuesday):  Phase 1 China Trade Deal 2020 YTD.

China’s imports of goods in March were the best of the year so far, but that isn’t saying much.  Once again, their imports didn’t even come close to the 2017 baseline, much less the goals set in the Phase 1 trade deal.  One might be tempted to cut China some slack because of the Covid-19 pandemic.  However, even if people are locked up in their homes, they still have to eat.  And Chinese imports of agriculture products are the weakest of the four categories of goods, and are consistent with their weak imports of the other goods categories.

At a minimum, Trump needs to give China a stern warning that if their imports don’t rise to meet goals by the end of June – halfway through 2020 – then the deal is off and all U.S. imports from China will be subject to the 25% tariff.  This is yet another example of China playing the U.S. for fools, as it has done for two decades.  The U.S. should never again engage in any trade negotiations with China.  Tariffs are the only thing they understand and they need to be increased until a balance of trade with China is achieved.