Seven Months Into Trump’s Administration, Has Anything Changed?

August 14, 2017

I’m back from a hiatus at my north woods retreat, and there’s a bit to catch up on.  For now, however, I’m wondering what has really changed in terms of the economy since Trump took office seven months ago.  Let me begin by sharing a recent experience.

My wife and I stopped into a small restaurant in Boulder Junction, Wisconsin for dinner one evening earlier this week.  Boulder Junction is a tiny town in Vilas County in northern Wisconsin, a popular vacation area frequented mostly by folks from Chicago and Milwaukee.  A polite Asian lady, speaking broken English, seated us and told us the waitress would take our order shortly.  Upon ordering, the waitress assured us that our order would be prepared as we had requested.  It wasn’t.  When we complained, the waitress – without even offering to make it right – apologized and explained that there was a “language barrier” in the kitchen.  A language barrier in Boulder Junction!  I couldn’t believe it.

Another old lodge that we visit for dinner is staffed with waiters and waitresses from Lithuania.  They just can’t find reliable help in the north woods of Wisconsin, they explain.  However, another restaurant just up the road seems to have no problem.

I know what’s going on here.  These little businesses don’t have the wherewithal to recruit foreign laborers.  So how do they get them?  While I can’t provide proof, I’m certain that the Chamber of Commerce is importing foreign labor and pushing them on these businesses, or making them available at rates so cheap that these businesses don’t even have to bother with trying to hire locally.  So, when it comes to Trump’s promises to stop these kinds of practices, there’s no evidence that anything has changed.

Changing gears, the Commerce Department released the June trade figures last week.  Here’s a chart that shows the balance of trade in manufactured goods:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.  As you can see, it continues on the same downhill trajectory that it’s been on throughout the Obama administration.  In fact, in the 2nd quarter of 2017, the deficit in manufactured goods set a new record of $185.6 billion.  In other words, contrary to Trump’s inaugural vow that:

“… rusted out factories scattered like tombstones … stops right here and stops right now!”

matters have actually gotten worse.  While the Trump administration is currently involved in renegotiating NAFTA and in negotiations with the Chinese, and the U.S. negotiators are reportedly taking a much harder line in these negotiations, I’m very pessimistic that any improvement in our balance of trade will result.  Why?  Because there’s nothing to negotiate.  The ONLY thing that will make a difference in America’s favor is tariffs, something that no nation would agree to in “negotiations.”  Anything they will agree to will be totally unenforceable and any attempts to enforce them would be met with whining and, more importantly, a cut-off in funding of candidates unless they pressure the Trump administration to back off of enforcement actions.  These same kinds of negotiations have been tried and have failed for decades.  Most recently, Obama’s deal with South Korea, which he hailed as a “big win for American workers,” has actually proven to be a disaster.

In the meantime, the “new normal” economy that emerged during the Obama administration, in the wake of the Great Recession, goes on.  GDP growth remains stuck in the 1-2% range, wages are stagnant and job growth (when viewed in the context of the “100,000 jobs is the new zero” economy) is anemic at best.  The economy is being kept afloat by deficit spending (up 10% so far this year), a once-again growth in credit and an inflated stock market.  The illusion of good times isn’t going to last.

I’m growing impatient with the Trump administration’s dithering on these issues.  Can you tell?

Advertisements

Population Density Drives Trade Imbalances Again in 2016

June 26, 2017

I’ve finished my analysis of trade in manufactured goods for 2016 and, as expected once again, the news isn’t good.  The overall deficit in manufactured goods soared to yet another new record in 2016 of $680 billion, beating the previous record set one year earlier by $32 billion.  A thorough, country-by-country analysis of the data reveals one overriding factor that’s driving this deficit- population density.  Since the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, the U.S. has systematically lowered barriers to its market for all countries, as required by that treaty and by the World Trade Organization that it spawned.  But that policy has yielded vastly different results.  While the U.S. enjoyed a surplus in manufactured goods of $34 billion with the half of nations with population densities below the world median, it was clobbered with a deficit of $704 billion with the other half of nations – those with population densities above the median.  Same number of nations.  Starkly different results.

Check out this chart:  Deficits Above & Below Median Pop Density.  First, some explanation of the data is in order.  I studied our trade data for 165 nations and separated out those product codes that represent manufactured products.  That’s no easy task.  There are hundreds of product codes.  While the Bureau of Economic Analysis makes it easy to track what’s happening with “goods” in general, that includes such things as oil, gas and agricultural products – goods that aren’t manufactured.  You’d think that they’d be interested in tracking manufactured products, given the level of political rancor on that subject, but they don’t.  The only way to arrive at that data is to sift it out, product code by product code.  Subtracting imports from exports, I was able to determine the balance of trade in manufactured goods for each.  I then sorted the data by the population density of each nation and divided these 165 nations evenly into two groups:  those 83 nations with a population density greater than the median (which, in 2016, was 191 people per square mile, up from 184 in 2015) and those 82 nations with a population density below the median.  I then totaled our balance of trade for each group.

As you can see, in 2016, our balance of trade in manufactured goods with the less densely populated half of nations was once again a surplus, but a smaller surplus of $34 billion.  This is down from $74 billion in 2015, is the third consecutive decline, and has fallen by almost 80% from the record high of $153 billion in 2011.  Why?  As the manufacturing sector of our economy is steadily eroded by huge trade deficits, we simply have fewer products to offer for sale to other nations.  Exports fell by $44 billion in 2016.  (Remember Obama’s pledge to double exports?  What a laugh.)

Conversely, our balance of trade in manufactured goods with the more densely populated half of nations was a huge deficit of $704 billion, down slightly from the record level of $722 billion in 2015.

Some observations about these two groups of nations are in order.  Though these nations are divided evenly around the median population density, the division is quite uneven with respect to population and land surface area.  The more densely populated nations represent almost 77% of the world’s population (not including the U.S.), but only about 24% of the world’s land mass (again, not including the U.S.).

Think about that.  With the people living in 76% of the world’s land mass, the U.S. enjoyed a surplus of trade of $34 billion in manufactured products.  But with the rest of the world – an area less than a third in size – the U.S. was clobbered with a $704 billion deficit!  Population density is the determining factor.  It’s not low wages.  The average purchasing power parity (or “PPP,” a factor roughly analogous to wages) of the densely populated half of nations – those with whom we have the huge deficit – is almost $20,000.  The average PPP of the less densely populated nations with whom we enjoy a trade surplus was about $18,000.  Wealthy nations were just as likely to appear among the deficit nations as among the surplus nations.

Nor is the other popular scapegoat – “currency manipulation” – a factor.  Nearly every currency in the world weakened against the dollar in 2016.  (Only 19 nations experienced an increase in the value of their currency.)  Among the 19 nations whose currencies rose, we had a deficit in manufactured goods with 8, and a surplus with 11.  On average, the deficits worsened by 115%, driven by a huge increase with Madagascar.  Remove that anomaly and the deficits actually declined by an average of 8.4% – in line with the currency theory.  Among the 11 nations with whom we had a surplus, the surpluses improved on average by 14% – again, in line with the currency theory.

However, among the 85 nations who experienced a decline in their currency vs the dollar, we had deficits with 27 of them.  On average, those deficits fell by 13.4% – exactly the opposite of what the currency theory would predict.  Among the remaining nations with whom we had a surplus, the surplus rose by an average of 33% – again, exactly the opposite of what currency theory predicts.

Therefore, we can conclude that our trade deficit in manufactured goods behaved exactly the opposite of what the “currency theory” would predict 80% of the time.  Why?  As noted earlier, most currencies fell vs the dollar last year.  This happened because the U.S. economy was in better shape than the rest of the world, at least in the minds of investors.  That’s what determines currency valuations.  Not manipulation.  Currency valuation has almost nothing to do with trade imbalances.  It affects the profitability of companies operating in different countries, but rarely makes any difference in the balance of trade.

This is absolute proof positive that trade imbalances in manufactured goods are driven by population density and almost nothing else.  Any trade policies that don’t take this factor into account are doomed to failure as evidenced by the destruction of the manufacturing sector of America’s economy.  The only remedy that offers any hope of turning this situation around is tariffs (or a “border tax,” as the Trump administration likes to call it).  Preferably, such tariffs would target only high population density nations like Japan, Germany, China, South Korea and a host of others.  Why apply tariffs to low density countries with whom we enjoy surpluses and anger them unnecessarily?

Trump was elected due in large part to his promises to tear up NAFTA and withdraw from the World Trade Organization and begin imposing a “border tax.”  It’s time to follow through on those promises while we still have a shred of a manufacturing sector left to build upon.

 


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.

 

 


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.

 


Weak Headline Number Masks Strong March Employment Report

April 8, 2017

The Bureau of Labor Statistics yesterday released its employment report for the month of March.  The headline jobs number was weak.  “Only” 98,000 jobs were added in March – about half of what was expected.  But unemployment dropped by two tenths (a fairly big drop) to 4.5%.  The data underlying the unemployment figure was quite strong.  The “employment level” (the number of people reporting being employed in the household survey portion of the report) rose by 472,000 in March.  (It rose by 447,000 in February.)  And the labor force grew by 145,000 – outpacing the growth in the general population for the fourth month in a row.

Last month, Trump hailed the strong February employment report as “real,” as opposed to the “fake” reports produced by the Obama administration.  (The Obama administration did lean heavily on claims of a shrinking labor force to prop up its unemployment figures.)  Was that claim just bluster or has the reporting methodology actually changed for the better?  It’s two early to tell but, at least for the second month in a row, the BLS claims that the labor force grew (as it actually does, of course) and the numbers seem plausible.  Time will tell.

Per capita employment (the employment level divided by the population) climbed above 47% for the first time since November, 2008.  (Here’s the chart:  Per Capita Employment.)  The “detachment from reality index” – my measure of how much the unemployment figures were distorted by the “mysteriously vanishing labor force” tactic used by the Obama administration – fell to its lowest level since January, 2013.  (Here’s the chart:  Detachment from Reality Index.)

This is great news, but it has more to do with a burst of confidence among consumers (likely driven by a burst of confidence among investors which has driven the stock market higher) in the wake of Trump’s election.  The fundamentals of the economy haven’t changed.  The trade deficit is as bad as ever.  And interest rates are on the rise which will pull the economy down if Trump isn’t able to make headway with tax and trade reforms.  And the jump in stocks that have propelled the economy has already stalled, now waiting to see if expectations of Trump policies actually materialize.

I hope that what appears to be honesty with the factors that make up the employment report (based on a scant two months’ of data) continues.  But without the “border tax” that Trump promised, the good numbers won’t.

By the way, for some time now, the Federal Reserve and others have been proclaiming the economy to be at full employment.  If that were true, then how does the economy continue to add jobs at a faster rate than the growth in the labor force, and how does the unemployment rate continue to fall?  It’s because they were all sucked in by the “detached from reality” employment reports produced by the Obama administration.  The fact is that an honest reading of unemployment (one that grew the labor force in proportion to population growth) has unemployment at 7.3% – nowhere even remotely close to “full employment.”


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.


Closing the Book on Obama’s Trade Policy

March 8, 2017

The U.S. trade deficit for the month of January was posted yesterday by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  It was horrible.  President Trump took office on January 20th, but he can hardly be held responsible for any of the January results.  This is all on former President Obama.

How bad was it?  The overall trade deficit rose to its worst level in nearly five years – $48.5 billion.  At $62.1 billion, the deficit in manufactured goods just missed its all-time worst reading of $62.5 billion set in March of 2015.  As you can see from this chart, if the trend in manufactured goods continues, we’ll have a new record very soon and, without the change in trade policy promised by President Trump, it will likely get worse from there:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.

Then there’s the export numbers.  In January of 2010, lacking the courage to take on the problem with imports, President Obama vowed to double exports in five years in an effort to turn the U.S. into more of an export-driven, Germany-like economy.  It never happened and never even came close.  In January of 2017 – seven years after Obama made that promise – total exports, at $192 billion – remained below the October, 2013 level.  Worse yet, exports of manufactured goods were below the level reached in September, 2011 – up only 26% from when Obama made that promise.  And that increase was due entirely to global economic recovery from the 2009 recession and had nothing to do with any real improvement in America’s export position.

So that closes the book on Obama’s trade policy, which was a total failure.  Actually, if President Trump follows through on his promise of tariffs (or border tax, or whatever you want to call it), this closes the book on a seven-decade-long experiment with free trade and globalization, begun in 1947 with the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that, by any measure of its effect on the American economy, has been a complete disaster.

  • America’s trade surplus dwindled until we ran our last trade surplus in 1976.
  • 41 consecutive years of trade deficits has yielded a cumulative deficit of $14.4 trillion.  During that time, the national debt, which is closely linked to the trade deficit, grew by $19.4 trillion.  In 1976, the national debt was only $0.5 trillion.  Virtually all of our national debt is due to the cumulative trade deficit since 1976.
  • During this period, family incomes and net worth have declined, our infrastructure has crumbled, and our nation has been bankrupted.  The manufacturing sector of the economy has been gutted.  More than ten million manufacturing jobs have been lost.  The United States, once the world’s preeminent industrial power, has been reduced to a skid-row bum, begging the rest of the world to loan us money to keep us afloat.

This is all on you now, President Trump.  You own it.  You’ve promised to straighten out this mess.  America is watching and waiting.