Red China Runnin’ Scared

April 18, 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-eu-exclusive/exclusive-china-seeks-trade-firewall-with-u-s-allies-in-rush-of-ambassador-meetings-sources-idUSKBN1HO1Y0

It all began with Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum.  Red China responded with tariffs on about $3 billion of American exports.  Trump upped the ante with a proposal for tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports.  Red China responded in kind, including tariffs on American soybeans, and they promptly began buying their soybeans from Brazil.  No dummies, the Brazilians.  They raised their prices.  And the EU, now unable to buy from Brazil, placed big orders for American soybeans.  No skin off the noses of American soybean farmers.

Trump then responded with a proposal for tariffs on another $100 billion of imports from Red China, whose tit-for-tat strategy was now exhausted since they import so little from the U.S.  Instead, they threatened severe retaliation in some form that remains unspecified.  But their rhetoric was threatening.  Not Islamist “rivers of blood running through your cities” threatening, but scary enough to those who don’t really understand international trade.

Now it’s looking a whole lot like a bluff.  As reported in the above-linked article, the Chinese are now running scared, trying to drum up support for “free trade” (their version of it) with the EU (European Union).

Some of the western diplomats involved in the meetings with Fu Ziying, who is also a vice-commerce minister, have viewed the approaches as a sign of how anxious Beijing is getting about the expanding conflict with Washington, the sources said.

The rush of meetings last Thursday and Friday with ambassadors from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, and the European Union, may be a signal that China is trying to build a firewall against Trump’s aggressive trade measures, the severity of which some foreign diplomats said Beijing had miscalculated.

“China is showing confidence, but internally they appear quite concerned. They have apparently underestimated Trump’s resolve on trade,” the diplomat said, adding that Beijing is nervous about China’s major trading partners siding with Washington.

It’s not likely they’re getting much sympathy from the EU.  In 2016, the EU had a $175 billion trade deficit with Red China.  If anything, the EU is probably realizing that America’s new get tough policy has Red China running scared and, just maybe, they ought to try a little of that tariff medicine themselves.

Advertisements

First Evidence of Chinese Impotence in Trade War

April 9, 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-soybeans/as-u-s-and-china-trade-tariff-barbs-others-scoop-up-u-s-soybeans-idUSKBN1HF0FQ

A key component of Red China’s response to America’s initial threat to impose tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods was to impose its own tariffs on one of America’s biggest exports – soybeans.  Their goal was to stir up angst among American farmers in the hope that they would apply pressure on Trump to back off.  In my post titled “A Trade War?  Let’s Get it On!”, I predicted that their strategy was doomed to failure:

“Oh, by the way, the threat of tariffs on American soybeans would hurt the Chinese more than Americans.  Does Chairman Xi think that his people will simply eat less?  Of course not.  He’ll have to get his soybeans somewhere else, like Brazil, and now those countries who imported soybeans from Brazil will turn to the U.S., probably bidding up the cost of soybeans.  No skin off of our noses, Chairman Xi.”

Now comes the first evidence that this exact scenario has already begun to play out.  In the above-linked article, Reuters reports that America has suddenly begun getting huge orders for soybeans from the EU, who now finds the price of American soybeans more attractive than the rising prices in Brazil.

“Escalating tensions between the United States and China have triggered a flurry of U.S. soybean purchases by European buyers … helped to underpin benchmark Chicago Board of Trade soybean prices after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to slap tariffs on an additional $100 billion of Chinese goods.

The USDA said 458,000 tonnes of U.S. soybeans were sold to undisclosed destinations, which traders and grains analysts said included EU soybean processors such as the Netherlands and Germany.

If the entire volume is confirmed to be going to the European Union, it would be the largest one-off sale to the bloc in more than 15 years, according to USDA data. The USDA could not immediately be reached for comment.

“We’re seeing a realignment of trade,” largely because the politics is driving up Brazilian soybean prices, said Jack Scoville, analyst with the Price Futures Group.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again over and over.  There is absolutely nothing to fear from America’s efforts to restore a balance of trade with Red China.  Since we are the ones with the huge trade deficit and they are the ones with a huge trade surplus, it’s impossible for America to lose, and impossible for Red China to win.  They are absolutely impotent in this fight.  China’s goods become too expensive?  No problem!  They’re not the only game in town.  We’ll buy them from someone else.  Better yet, we’ll begin making them ourselves.  China provides us absolutely nothing that we can’t make ourselves more efficiently, using cleaner, more environmentally sound processes, and more ethically in terms of worker rights.  And, truth be told, we can make them cheaper.  The logistics involved in shipping things halfway around the world isn’t cheap, you know.  (Did you know that container ships that move goods all over the world, goods which could just as easily be made locally, consume five billion barrels of oil per year?)

And China buys nothing from us that can’t be sold to other customers around the world.

They’ll stop buying our debt, or sell off what they have?  Go ahead.  U.S treasuries are priced in dollars.  Whoever they sell them to has to pay for them with dollars.  So now they’re stuck with dollars which have probably dropped in value – the very situation that necessitated them buying the bonds in the first place.  And, just as we’re seeing with soybeans, there’ll be other investors eager to snap them up.  Heck, if American households switched just a small part of their savings into U.S. bonds, that demand alone would sop up every single bond that China owns.  I won’t take credit for this quote, but I can’t remember where I read it recently, that Red China’s threat to dump its U.S. treasury holdings is like a man holding a gun to his head and saying, “I have a hostage.”

There is nothing to fear here.  America is going to come out a big winner.  It’s a slam dunk.

 


More Trade War Hysteria

April 7, 2018

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/04/one-of-the-biggest-us-trade-wars-of-the-past-had-a-tragic-consequence–heres-what-happened.html?recirc=taboolainternal

I was hoping to spend some time tallying the U.S.’s global trade results for 2017, but then this popped up and I just can’t let it pass.  Actually, I was wondering when the free trade globalists would dredge up the subject of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, blaming it for the Great Depression, as they usually do.  But the writer of the above linked article, in an apparent attempt to ratchet up fears of a trade war, goes a step further and blames Smoot-Hawley for World War II!

She begins by creating the impression that Smoot-Hawley was an opening salvo in a trade war in the 1930s.  She either doesn’t have a clue, or is intentionally trying to mislead her readers.  Let’s get some facts straight.  First of all, the use of tariffs was standard trade policy for the United States since its founding.  In fact, until 1913, there was no need for an income tax in the U.S. because all federal revenue was derived from tariffs.  The Smoot Hawley Act was nothing more than a minor tweak of tariff rates that had been in effect since the Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922.  It increased tariffs on average by 2.7%.  It changed the tariff basis from an ad valorem (percentage) basis to a fixed dollar basis which, under normal circumstances, would actually have slowly reduced tariffs as inflation eroded the value of the tariff.  But, of course, the Great Depression resulted in a protracted term of deflation instead of inflation.

Blaming Smoot-Hawley for the Great Depression is bad enough.  Not only was the change in tariff rates minuscule, but it wasn’t enacted until June of 1930, a year-and-a-half after the stock market crash of 1929 which actually precipitated the Great Depression.  And at the height of the Great Depression in 1933 when GDP (gross domestic product) had fallen by 33%, or $33.1 billion from its 1929 level, the total value of imports and exports had declined by only $6.5 billion.  It was actually the Great Depression that caused the drop in trade, and not the other way around, just as the “Great Recession” that began in 2008 resulted in a sharp decline in trade.

To blame Smoot-Hawley or a “trade war” that didn’t even exist for World War II is truly outrageous.  It was actually the aftermath of World War I and the severe war reparations that were imposed on Germany, resulting in soaring inflation and unemployment, that fostered Hitler’s rise to power.  And that just happened to coincide with the growing aggressiveness of imperialist Japan.  Trade had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Sure, the world made a turn toward free trade following the war with the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, but it wasn’t because anyone blamed a “trade war” for causing World War II.  It was because economists, eager to try out the concept of free trade, successfully (but disingenuously) blamed tariffs for the Great Depression and made an argument that the interdependence that would come with free trade could preclude any future world wars.

Actually, if one were to be honest, free trade and the enormous global trade imbalances it has fostered is directly responsible for our current trade tensions.  We need to restore balance to global trade through the use of tariffs or quotas before things get any worse.


U.S. Trade Deficit with EU Rises to New Record in 2017

April 5, 2018

The U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EU (European Union) rose to a new record of $148.2 billion in 2017.  Here’s a chart of that deficit, dating back to 2001:  EU.  After falling slightly in 2016, it rose again to eclipse the record 2015 deficit by $0.3 billion.

This deficit is a lot less than our deficit with Red China, but some perspective is in order.  The population of the EU is 556.6 million people.  The population density of the EU is 327 people per square mile.  The population of Red China is 1.38 billion people and their population density is 383 people per square mile.  Our trade deficit in manufactured goods with Red China in 2017 was $405 billion.  In per capita terms, our trade deficit in manufactured goods with Red China was $294.  In per capita terms, our trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EU was $246.

So the only reason that our deficit with the EU is that much less than our deficit with Red China is that the EU is that much smaller.  If the EU were the same size as China, our deficit with the EU (in manufactured goods) would have been $367.4 billion – only 9% less than our deficit with Red China.  The reason for this is that the EU is nearly as densely populated as Red China – only 14.6% less densely populated.

Some say that our huge trade deficit with Red China is due to low wages.  Then how do you explain that, in per capita terms (which factors out the sheer size of a country), the trade deficit with EU, where wages are about 2-1/2 times higher than Red China,  is nearly as bad as the deficit with Red China?  In fact, almost half of our trade deficit with the EU is with Germany, where wages are nearly on a par with those in the U.S.   How do you explain that?  It’s because trade imbalances are caused not by low wages, but by disparities in population density.  The EU is more than three times as densely populated as the U.S.  China is four times as densely populated.  Germany is six times.  Trade deficits with such nations are virtually assured because their over-crowded conditions drive down their consumption while they produce just as much.  They can’t absorb their own output, much less consume imports from America.

Trade negotiations with nations that are so badly overpopulated are utterly futile because it’s impossible to negotiate down the disparity in population density.  The only thing the less densely populated nation (the U.S., in these circumstances) can do to restore a balance of trade is to levy tariffs or set quotas.  It’s the only way.

If still not convinced, my next posts will take a broader look at U.S. trade results with the world as a whole, and you’ll see that the population density effect is absolutely undeniable.


Red China Fires Back, but Now Low on Ammo

April 4, 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/china-retaliates-slaps-duties-on-u-s-soybeans-planes-markets-skid-idUSKCN1HB0G6

As reported in the above-linked article, Red China has now matched Trump dollar-for-dollar with tariffs on American exports in the escalating “trade war.”  But now it finds itself critically low on “ammo.”  If Trump responds with tariffs on another $50 billion of Chinese imports, Red China will be able to match those tariffs again.  But then they’re done.  Trump could continue to slap tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports eight more times and Red China would be unable to respond because there would be no more American exports to attack.  That’s how bad the trade imbalance is and why Red China has such a losing hand.

In spite of Wall Street getting its panties in a wad over this situation, there’s really nothing to fear.  So Chinese goods become more expensive.  So what?  Americans then have a choice.  Spend more money to get them or use their money for something else.  For example, suppose Apple iPhone X’s go up in price from $1,000 to $1,250.  Maybe it’ll be just the catalyst Americans have needed to ponder whether all the money they spend on these gadgets is money well-spent.  Given the high cost of the phones and the contracts for data plans, and given that social media has now been exposed as a scheme for mining away your privacy, maybe the money would be better spent on other things, like homes and cars, for example.  The point is that less money spent on Chinese imports is money now available for spending on other things.  The impact on the U.S. economy will be a positive one – not a negative.

What Trump needs to do is take this trade war to the next level.  He needs to apply tariffs across the board to every Chinese import.  Beyond that, he needs to take on our other big trade deficits with the likes of the European Union, Japan, Mexico and a few others.  Any country that has a sustained trade surplus with the U.S. needs to be in his cross-hairs but, at the same time, he needs to lower barriers for our good trade partners like Canada, Australia, most all of South America, and others.  This isn’t a war against trade.  It’s a war for balanced trade – a war from which we should never have withdrawn.


Analysis of Trade with Red China

April 2, 2018

I’ve just finished my annual analysis of U.S. trade with virtually every country and have begun compiling the results.  It’s no small task, tallying the results for hundreds of end-use codes for approximately  160 countries.  But before I present those results for the world as a whole, I want to highlight the results of a few key trade partners.  Our biggest deficit is with Red China, so let’s begin there first.

After improving slightly in 2016, our trade deficit in manufactured goods with Red China worsened again to a new record – a deficit of $405 billion.  Here’s the chart of trade with Red China, dating back to 2001:  China balance of trade.  Imports from Red China totaled $505.6 billion, almost all of which – $493.4 billion – was manufactured products.  These imports were offset slightly by U.S. exports to Red China totaling $130.4 billion, of which $88.2 billion was manufactured products.

Here’s a list of the top ten imports from Red China (using the Census Bureau’s 5-digit end-use code descriptions):

  1. Other household goods:  $70.4 billion
  2. Computers:  $45.5 billion
  3. Telecommunications equipment:  $33.5 billion
  4. Computer accessories, peripherals and parts:  $31.6 billion
  5. Toys, shooting and sporting goods, and bicycles:  $26.8 billion
  6. Apparel and household goods – other textiles:  $24.2 billion
  7. Furniture, household items, baskets:  $20.7 billion
  8. Auto parts and accessories:  $14.4 billion
  9. Household and kitchen appliances:  $14.1 billion
  10. Electric apparatus and parts:  $14.1 billion

That’s just the top ten.  Imports from Red China actually comprise 141 different 5-digit end-use codes.

And here are America’s top ten exports to Red China:

  1. Civilian aircraft, engines, equipment, and parts:  $16.3 billion
  2. Soybeans:  $12.4 billion
  3. Passenger cars, new and used:  $10.5 billion
  4. Semiconductors:  $6.1 billion
  5. Industrial machines, other:  $5.4 billion
  6. Crude oil:  $4.4 billion
  7. Plastic materials:  $4.0 billion
  8. Medicinal equipment:  $3.5 billion
  9. Pulpwood and woodpulp:  $3.4 billion
  10. Logs & lumber:  $3.2 billion

The trade deficit in manufactured products with Red China represents a staggering loss to the manufacturing sector of our economy – a loss of approximately eight million manufacturing jobs.  Why is this happening?  Why is a huge nation like Red China – a nation with four times as many people as the U.S. – unable to import from the U.S. as much as we import from them?

Some say that such trade deficits are caused by low wages – that manufacturers move their plants to low wage countries.  Take a look at this chart:  China PPP vs deficit.  This is a chart of Red China’s PPP (purchasing power parity – roughly analogous to wages) vs. the U.S. trade deficit with Red China.  If there is any merit to this claim – that low wages cause trade deficits – then the trade deficit should moderate as wages in Red China rise.  That’s not what we see happening.  Though wages in Red China are more than six times what they were in 2001, instead of shrinking, our trade deficit with them is now almost five times worse.  Clearly, the low wage theory holds no water.

Others say the trade deficit with Red China is due to currency manipulation by Red China, keeping its value low so that its people can’t afford to buy imports, forcing them to buy domestically-made goods.  OK, so let’s take a look at the trade deficit vs. the value of the Chinese yuan against the U.S. dollar:  China Xch rate vs deficit.  The value of the yuan has weakened by 11% in the past two years, and our trade deficit got worse by 5%.  But taking a longer look, since 2001 the yuan has appreciated in value vs. the dollar by 18% but, instead of the trade deficit improving in response, it’s now almost five times worse.  The currency manipulation theory isn’t supported by the data.

Undoubtedly, the trade barriers that China maintains on American imports – barriers that are fully sanctioned by the World Trade Organization – have had some effect.  But as we’ll see when we look at trade with the rest of the world, the effect is pretty minimal and, when plotted on a chart of trade imbalance vs. population density, China falls right along the curve.

The real reason for the huge and worsening trade deficit with Red China is the fact that their severe over-crowding has rendered them incapable of consuming goods at anywhere near the rate of Americans.  It’s the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption that I wrote about in Five Short Blasts.  While Americans, on average, live in decent-sized single family homes with yards and drive to work, the Chinese live in tiny apartments and use mass transit or bicycles to commute.  There’s little room for furniture and appliances, no use for lawn and gardening equipment, no garages to park their cars and the roads are too crowded for driving them anyway.

There is no free trade path to restoring a balance of trade in these circumstances.  The only remedy is the use of tariffs to incentivize manufacturers to remain in the U.S. and provide American consumers with domestically-manufactured choices.