Trump was right to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement

June 3, 2017

Let me begin by making clear that I am an environmentalist.  It was my concern for the environment – especially my little piece of the environment that I enjoy in the north woods – that was the genesis of my discovery of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, which I presented and explained in Five Short Blasts.  It’s a clear-eyed look at just where unending population growth will take us.  Few have devoted as much of their time to trying to save the planet.

Let me also make clear that I’m neither a GOP conservative nor a Democrat.  As I stated in Five Short Blasts, the platforms of both parties – both of which embrace and promote population growth – produce nothing more than weaving left and right along a path to ruin.  So this post isn’t politically motivated.

“Climate change,” the now-politically correct term for global warming, is real.  The link to human activity is undeniable.  I’ve watched Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”  and agree with its premise.  Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane are building up in the atmosphere and trapping solar heat.  The science is clear.  Kudos to the scientists.

But shame on environmentalists.  The environmental movement has been a colossal failure.  If it weren’t, we wouldn’t now find ourselves in the fix that we’re in.  We wouldn’t be in the midst of a mass extinction.  The dire consequences of global warming are now inevitable.  Environmentalists admit as much.  And who is to blame for all of this?  There’s plenty of blame to go around but it could be argued that no one is more to blame than the leaders of the environmental movement themselves.  There may be a special place in hell for these people for what they’ve done.

Why do I say such a thing?  A little history is in order.  Going back decades, to the ’80s, if my memory serves me correctly, the environmental movement was in trouble.  The Vietnam war was over and young, impatient activists seized upon the environment as a new cause.  Their approach was radical and intolerant.  Industry, the civilian half of the “military industrial complex” that was the object of so much scorn by young radicals during the Vietnam era, was demonized as the enemy of humanity by the environmental movement.  The environmental movement was anti-industry, anti-development anti-everything to the point where they were perceived as being anti-humanity.

At the same time, as a result of new trade policies ushered in by GATT (the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, enacted in 1947), the de-industrialization of America was underway.  Factories were closing.  People were losing their jobs.  And the country was being flooded with imports from Japan.  Eager to find a scapegoat, industry successfully blamed the environmental movement for making it impossible to continue manufacturing in America.  People began to despise these young, impatient, intolerant and uncompromising environmentalist radicals.

Industry had its own image problems.  Both sides saw an opportunity and began to collaborate.   The environmental movement softened its approach to development and, in return for the environmentalists’ endorsement of new development projects, industry began to embrace some of their more reasonable demands and causes.  The environmental movement made a deal with the devil and the concept of “sustainable development” was born.

Soon after, the company I worked for served up an example.  They announced plans to build a new plant on a pristine “green field” site – a piece of undeveloped property they owned.  At the same time, they also announced that another such piece of property was being set aside as a sort of wildlife refuge, never to be developed.  This, they proudly proclaimed, was a prime example of “sustainable development.”  “How the hell is that sustainable?” I wondered.  Half of the property in question was now gone.  It didn’t take a genius to figure out where that will ultimately lead if such “development” is “sustained.”

The term is an oxymoron and there is no such thing as “sustainable development.”  It makes me bristle every time I hear it.  By it’s very definition, “development” means putting natural resources to work to enhance the lives of human-kind.  There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize that, in a finite world, the process has to stop at some point.  It can’t be sustained forever. A finite resource can only sustain a certain number of people at a high standard of living.  Even a child should be able to understand this.  Yet, that is exactly what corporate leaders and their environmentalist lackeys would have you believe – that we can continue growing our population and continue to consume more and more, and thus grow their profits – “sustainably.” Forever.

Of course, the leaders of the environmental movement responsible for this mess won’t find themselves alone.  If there’s a hotter place in hell, it’s occupied by economists – those people who, in the wake of their Malthusian black eye, proclaimed that there is no limit to man’s ability to overcome all obstacles to growth, and vowed never again to even consider that population growth could present challenges.  It is yet another claim unable to stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny, but is the foundation upon which the concept of “sustainable development” is built. Incredibly, the environmental movement has bought into this.

With all of this said, I decided to do my own objective evaluation of the Paris Climate Agreement to decide for myself the wisdom of Trump’s move.  I started with Wikipedia’s take on the agreement, but then decided to go right to the United Nations’ web site that documents the whole thing.  I wanted to read the agreement for myself.  But, try as I might, I’ll be darned if I can find it.  There’s lots of explanation from the UN about the agreement, but I couldn’t find the agreement itself.  That kind of thing always makes me a little suspicious.

Anyway, here’s some key aspects of the agreement:

  • Certain few developed countries – most notably the U.S. – are targeted to generate all of the reduction in greenhouse gases.  Many undeveloped nations are actually allowed to increase their emissions in order to allow them to develop.  China, the world’s worst polluter, committed to only 25% of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in per capita terms, that the U.S. committed to achieving.
  • Aid, beginning at a minimum of $100 billion per year above and beyond aid that nations are already receiving, must be provided by developed nations to help undeveloped nations develop faster and to help them deal with the effects of climate change.
  • Each nation sets its own goals, consistent with the overall goal to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius or less, but then must report annually on their progress toward meeting their goals.

Already, I was beginning to have my doubts.  Forcing dramatic emissions cuts on the U.S. while allowing other nations to increase their emissions seems to preclude the U.S. from ever re-balancing trade and rebuilding the manufacturing sector of the economy, even if it meant producing products in plants that operated under strict environmental regulations as opposed to the filthy factories spewing smog in China.  This feels like some sort of “eco-trade barrier.”

Secondly, the requirement that wealthy nations boost their aid to developing nations by a minimum of another $100 billion per year to help them develop seems like a money grab.  We all know where the vast majority of funding would come from – the U.S. – just as the U.S. funds a disproportionate share of the U.N., the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, NATO, and virtually every other multi-national organization.

Finally, as I scanned through the many web pages that the UN serves up, I found the real goal of the agreement.  In the UN’s own words, here it is:

  • The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.” It states that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

And there it is!  “… enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”  This agreement isn’t about saving the planet or the environment.  It’s about keeping environmental degradation just tolerable enough that we can continue to pack the planet with more corporate customers.

If climate change is the result of human activity, then isn’t it logical that any effort to combat it should begin with a focus on limiting the number of humans or their activity?  What is gained if we all cut our greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 50% but then double the population?  Absolutely nothing!

The U.S. has already made strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn’t even close to being enough.  To achieve the cuts that President Obama committed to in the Kyoto protocol – cuts of 80% or more – the plan relies heavily on “carbon capture.”  That is, CO2 would be extracted from exhaust stacks and stored in tanks or underground.  Essentially, it’s a process of creating a CO2 “landfill” which, if we all cross our fingers and toes and hope real hard, maybe it’ll never leak and create such a catastrophic jump in atmospheric CO2 levels that the planet is almost instantly cooked!

Any approach to the climate change problem that doesn’t begin with a plan to stabilize and gradually reduce the human population to a level where we can all enjoy a high standard of living without threatening the planet is a hoax.  Climate change is real, but this Paris agreement is just that – a hoax.  It has little to nothing to do with fighting climate change.  Instead, it’s globalization and “sustainable development” on steroids.  There is an old saying that goes something like this:  “If you can’t bewilder them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.”  That’s exactly what “sustainable development” does.

Critics have mocked President Trump, saying that he is incapable of grasping the complexities of the Paris agreement.  It could be argued that perhaps it was President Obama who didn’t understand that the agreement he proclaimed to be such an accomplishment actually does nothing for the climate and simply suckered the U.S. into yet another self-destructive deal.  And it’s time for all people who are concerned about climate change and the environment to wake up to the fact that the environmental movement has been hijacked by those who profit from plundering the planet and that they, too, are being suckered by the concept of “sustainable development.”

I’m not terribly concerned.  I believe that if the world doesn’t wake up to the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, then the unemployment, poverty and rising death rate that it fosters are going to do more to put a lid on greenhouse gas emissions than the Paris agreement could have ever hoped to achieve.

In the meantime, other world leaders have rushed to the defense of the Paris agreement.  No surprise.  They can kiss goodbye the $100 billion (per year!) they were counting on.  Plus, championing the Paris agreement is all upside for politicians with no downside.  Everyone loves them for their concern for the planet and they can never be held accountable, since it’s impossible to gauge success under the agreement.  It’s like a campaign promise that never has to be kept because no one can tell whether or not you’ve delivered.

Americans have been fleeced far too much in the name of globalization.  Clearly, Trump wasn’t baffled by this BS.  I applaud him for having the guts to walk away from this deal and for being willing to take the political heat for doing so.

 

 


Trump and Ross played for fools by China

May 13, 2017

In 2016, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $347 billion.  The deficit in manufactured goods was $372 billion.  China accounts for over half of the total U.S. trade deficit.  The deficit with China is responsible for the loss of five million manufacturing jobs in the U.S.  and for the downward spiral in Americans’ standard of living.

Throughout the campaign, Trump promised to impose tariffs of up to 45% on Chinese goods to restore a balance of trade.  It’s one of the key reasons he was elected.  In his inaugural address, Trump declared:

“These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public. But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists. Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation, an education system flush with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge. And the crime, and the gangs, and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

“Right here and right now.”  Yet, four months into his administration, details of his plans for trade with China are beginning to emerge, as reported in this Reuters article.

The United States and China have agreed to take action by mid-July to increase access for U.S. financial firms and expand trade in beef and chicken among other steps as part of Washington’s drive to cut its trade deficit with Beijing.

That’s it?!?!?!?  Beef and chicken!?!?!?!?  So instead of “right here and right now,” what we get instead is that, six months into his administration, we might be able to sell China a few more hamburgers?  And what do we get in return?  Chicken imports.  Who in their right minds would eat chicken imported from China?  We can’t even feed our pets dog food from China for fear that it’ll kill them, which has actually happened.  And we supposedly got some cooperation from China in reining in North Korea.  Doesn’t Trump realize that China and North Korea work together to blunt any action on trade?  Maybe that’s what we need – some puppet state to develop nuclear weapons to threaten China.  Then we can agree to pull in on their reins if China will just agree to some heavy tariffs.

What will the next 100 days of negotiations yield?  A side order of fries?

As has always happened following trade negotiations with the U.S., Chinese President Xi must have been rolling in the aisle with laughter on his plane ride home from Mar-a-Lago.  Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were played for total fools.  This is beyond pathetic.  It’s an insult to Trump’s supporters and all American workers.

“This will help us to bring down the deficit for sure,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said at media briefing in Washington. “You watch and you’ll see.”

Oh, we’re watching, Wilbur, and I already know what we’ll see.  Nothing.  The trade deficit with China will, if anything, get worse.  America’s been suckered yet again.


Economic Data Still Stuck in “New Normal” of Globalization

May 6, 2017

Three major economic reports were released in the past week, each of which I usually write about separately.  But there was nothing particularly noteworthy about any of them.  Taken together, however, they paint a picture of a U.S. economy that’s still stuck in the “new normal” that characterizes globalization (trading freely with all nations, regardless of whether it makes any sense) – stagnation, an imbalance in the supply vs. demand for labor that puts downward pressure on wages, and a host-parasite relationship between the U.S. and the overpopulated nations of the world.

First quarter GDP was announced last Friday, and it came in at a measly 0.7%.  Expressed in per capita terms, it rose only 0.09%.  Over the past ten years, per capita GDP has risen at an annual rate of only 0.6%.  That’s very close to no growth at all and explains a lot about Americans’ sense that the country is headed in the wrong direction.  Population growth and free trade with much more densely populated nations has become a significant drag on the economy.

Speaking of trade, that data was released Thursday.  Here’s a chart showing the monthly balance of trade in manufactured goods:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.  The deficit in manufactured goods continues to hover near its record worst level.  In fact, it was the second worst quarterly figure ever, down by only $1 billion from the record level of $177.1 billion set in the previous quarter.

The April employment report was released yesterday.  The headline numbers were that the economy added 211,000 jobs and unemployment fell to 4.4%.  No one noted that the employment level rose by a more modest 156,000 and unemployment fell because, once again, the growth in the labor force was understated at only 12,000 (while the U.S. population grew by 171,000).  Each month, as the unemployment rate ticks downward, economists proclaim the economy to be at “full employment.”  And each succeeding month, the economy adds more jobs and the unemployment rate drops more.  How can that be?  Here’s a chart of the “labor force backlog,” the cumulative amount that the government has under-reported growth in the labor force in order to make unemployment look better than it really is:  Labor Backlog.  (It’s the yellow line on the chart.)  Note that the “backlog” remains near its highest level at about 5-1/2 million workers.  Were it not for this “backlog,” an honest reading on unemployment would have the figure at 7.2% – a far cry from “full employment.”  It’s no wonder that, in spite of all of this supposed strength in labor market, there’s been no corresponding upward pressure on wages.

What does it mean when you put all of this together?  It means that the approach taken by President Trump to date – jawboning foreign leaders on trade and CEOs about manufacturing in the U.S., and making idle threats about tearing up trade deals and implementing “border taxes” – has done absolutely nothing to improve the economy.  No surprise.  These are exactly the same results that the same tactics employed by past presidents for decades has produced, which are no results at all.

Trump has seemed to be backing away from his promises on trade.  He’d better not, or he’ll find himself dealing with a recession before his first term is up.  His voters tolerate his less appealing aspects on the hope that he’ll follow through on his promise to “Make America Great Again” by fixing our trade mess.  Failure to do so won’t be tolerated.


Anti-border tax coalition

April 20, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-lobbying-idUSKBN17C2HQ

I’ve been predisposed for a week or so and it’s now time to get caught up on some things.  There’s been a lot in the news lately regarding Trump administration policies on immigration and trade.  I’m extremely pleased with what’s happening on immigration, less so with what I hear about Trump waffling on the idea of a “border tax” (another name for tariffs).

But I’ll start with the above-linked story that came out last week because this is a perfect example of the divergence of interests that takes place when a nation becomes “economically over-populated” or takes on the characteristics of such an economy through free trade with a badly overpopulated nation.  For the benefit of those unfamiliar with this concept, this divergence of interests is one of the consequences of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption.  As a society becomes more densely populated, the need to crowd together and economize space begins to erode per capita consumption.  As per capita consumption declines, so too does per capita employment.  The result is rising unemployment and poverty.   It’s in individuals’ best interest – in the best interest of the common good – that this situation be avoided.  (To better understand this concept, I encourage you to read Five ShortBlasts.)

However, while per capita consumption may begin to decline as a population density reaches a certain level, total consumption continues to rise with a growing population.  Who benefits from that?  Anyone in the business of selling products.  Not only do they benefit from the increase in sales volume, but they benefit further as the labor force grows faster than demand, putting downward pressure on wages.  Thus, it’s in corporations’ best interest to see population growth continue forever, and to pursue more markets through free trade.

So it’s in the best interest of the common good that we avoid meshing our economy through free trade with nations whose markets are emaciated by overcrowding and who come to the trading table with nothing but bloated labor forces hungry for work.  But it’s in corporations’ best interests to grow the overall customer base through free trade with those same nations.  So it comes as no surprise that a big-business coalition is eager to steer lawmakers away from any tax plan that would include a “border tax” (a tariff) that might shut them out of their foreign markets.

They call themselves “Americans for Affordable Products,” making it sound as though it is individual Americans who make up this coalition and not global corporations.  They want us to believe that products will become less affordable.  While prices for imports may rise, they want you to forget that those increases would be more than offset by rising incomes and falling tax rates.  They don’t care if the border tax benefits you.  All they care about is that it may not necessarily benefit them.

So which of these competing interests will lawmakers heed – their wealthy corporate benefactors or the angry Americans who swept the Trump administration into power on his promise to enact a border tax and bring our manufacturing jobs back home?  Money talks and I fear that groups like this coalition are having an effect.  Trump and Republicans would be wise to ignore them.  Democrats paid the price for ignoring the plight of middle-class Americans when Obama betrayed his promise of “hope and change.”  Those same middle-class Americans will pull the trigger on Trump too if he doesn’t come through.

 


February Trade Report: New Administration, Same Old Deficit

April 4, 2017

OK, I know it’s not reasonable to expect anything different.  After all, Trump hasn’t yet had a chance to implement new trade policies that would have any meaningful impact on our trade results.   What he has done is meet with some leaders of nations who are among the worst offenders in terms of their trade surplus with the U.S.:  Mexico, Japan and Germany, most notably.  He meets with Chinese president Xi Jinping in a couple of days.  Reportedly, he hasn’t pulled any punches so far in expressing his displeasure with the trade deficit and has vowed to take tough action (like a “border tax”) to change the situation.  So, one thing we can say about the early evidence provided by the February trade results is that tough talk has absolutely no effect on trade results.  (As if the trade results of past administrations aren’t sufficient evidence.)

In February, the deficit dipped slightly.  Here’s a chart of the deficit in manufactured goods:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.  As you can see, though the deficit dipped slightly from January, it remains stuck in the $55-62 billion range it’s been in for two years.

As time goes on, I grow more nervous that Trump will cop out on the trade issue just as Obama did, as more and more meetings with world leaders and business leaders try to convince him of the intangible, unquantifiable benefits of free trade.  It worked on Obama.  Hopefully, they’ll find Trump a tougher nut to crack.  Time will tell.  If there is no border tax in Trump’s tax overhaul plan, we’ll know that he caved to the pressure.  We’re watching, President Trump.  You can kiss your supporters goodbye if you don’t come through on this campaign promise.


Trump to Confront China’s Xi This Week

April 3, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKBN175025

In the wake of the Obama administration, it still makes me nervous any time the president sits down for talks with a foreign leader.  For Obama, there were no concessions too big for him to make.  Foreign leaders played him like a fiddle.  Americans came out the losers every time.  I say this as one who had big hopes for Obama and voted for him in 2008.

As reported in the above-linked Reuters article, Chinese President Xi Jinping travels to Florida this week to meet President Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort.  The media will be focused on dealings aimed at reining in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.  But the real story will be their talks on trade.  America’s failed trade policy is far and away the biggest contributor to our economic decline.  All of our economic problems and virtually every other problem that is impacted by monetary resources allocated to deal with it can be blamed on our trade deficit.  The budget deficit, nearly all of our national debt, our crumbling infrastructure, our health care crisis, homelessness, poverty …. you name it, they’re all directly linked to the drain of our financial resources wrought by the trade deficit.  And no country is more responsible for that drain than China, who accounts for nearly one half of the entire deficit.

On Friday, the U.S. president sought to push his crusade for fair trade and more manufacturing jobs back to the top of his agenda by ordering a study into the causes of U.S. trade deficits and a clamp down on import duty evasion.

If the President is truly interested in the cause of U.S. trade deficits, he need look no further than this blog and can learn all he needs to know by reading Five Short Blasts.   Nations who come to the trading table with nothing to offer but bloated labor forces and markets emaciated by gross overcrowding are the cause of trade deficits.  By this criteria, China is the worst of the worst.  Only tariffs (or a “border tax,” if that term is less onerous) can maintain a balance of trade when dealing with such countries.  Negotiations are pointless since the only possible outcome is to trust the other side to take actions to rein in their appetite for our market.  Decades of experience since the beginning of the failed experiment with “free” trade has proven that they won’t.

So far, President Trump has proven that, for the most part, he can be trusted to follow through on his campaign promises.  No promise was bigger than getting tough with China on trade.  It seems that Germany’s Angela Merkel found him to be a very different president from Obama in her recent meeting with Trump.  Hopefully, he’ll be just as tough on Xi.  It seems that Trump’s “border tax” idea is now becoming more accepted as a crucial element of his upcoming tax reform plan.  Let’s hope he doesn’t negotiate away any of it this week.


February Employment Report: “Real” or “Fake?”

March 15, 2017

The employment report for the month of February (the first full month of the Trump administration) was released on Friday and the numbers looked pretty good.  The economy added 235,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell one tenth to 4.7%.  President Trump hailed the news and declared that, though the employment reports during the Obama administration were fake, that the February numbers were very real.

Let’s examine that claim.  First of all, take a look at this chart:  Labor Backlog.  Some explanation is in order.  “Actual labor force growth” is the growth in the labor force if it had grown at the same rate as the overall population as it does in reality.  The “BLS reported labor force growth” is the growth in the labor force that the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to calculate the unemployment rate.  The “change in employment level” is a figure taken directly from the BLS monthly data.  It’s the growth in the number of people who report being employed in the household survey.  The “labor force backlog” is the difference between the growth in employment level and the “actual labor force growth.”  If the employment level grows faster, then unemployment should decline along with the “labor force backlog.”

Note that during the Obama years, the BLS consistently reported less growth in the labor force than what the growth in the population would suggest.  Only in 2012 and 2015 did the BLS report labor force growth that was slightly above actual growth.  The result is that the “labor force backlog” grew steadily during the Obama administration until it peaked at the end of 2014 at 6,359,000 workers who were unemployed.  By the end of 2016, that backlog had fallen only slightly to 5,994,000 workers.  In spite of that, according to the BLS, the unemployment rate plummeted from 9.9% in 2008 to 4.7% in 2016.  That’s impossible and the only way that the BLS was able to make it appear that the unemployment rate was dropping was by claiming that workers were dropping out of the labor force or by not growing the labor force as the population grew, or through some combination of those factors.  Thus, when Trump claimed that the employment data was “fake” during the Obama administration, he was exactly right.  If you’ve been a follower of this blog, you know that it’s something that I maintained all along throughout the Obama administration.

OK, so how about Trump’s claim that the numbers now are “real?”  So far, in January and February, the BLS has reported growth in the labor force of 416,000 workers.  The actual growth in the labor force – if it grows in proportion to the population – is only 89,000 workers.  In other words, so far in 2017, the BLS now claims that 327,000 “missing” workers have reappeared in the work force.  That supports Trump’s claim that his numbers are real.  But time will tell.  Two months’ of data isn’t nearly enough to judge how honest the Trump administration is being when it comes to the employment reports.  It’s something I’ll watch just as closely as the Obama numbers.