More Evidence that Tariffs are Working

March 8, 2019

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-emerson/as-trade-wars-rage-emerson-plots-new-u-s-expansion-idUSKCN1QP0IQ

Here’s more evidence that the tariffs on Chinese imports are working.  As reported in the above-linked article, Emerson Electric now plans to move manufacturing back to the U.S.  It’s a complete reversal from their strategy of only ten years ago.

In 2009, the chief executive of Emerson Electric Co. bluntly told investors at a Chicago conference what many of his counterparts at other manufacturing firms would only say privately.  “I’m not going to hire anybody in the United States. I’m moving,” David Farr said as he blasted U.S. taxes and regulations and called it an easy decision to expand in India and China.

A decade later, Farr has made a stunning reversal: Emerson now plans to build at least three new U.S. plants and is already expanding existing domestic operations. Farr saw a new era of U.S. protectionism coming before Trump’s election – and started planning accordingly, he said in an interview with Reuters at the company’s sprawling headquarters near St. Louis, Missouri.

“For the first time now, I’m looking for best-cost U.S. locations” to build factories, he said.

Trump’s election, Farr said, accelerated a political shift against free trade policy that is now transforming many U.S. firms’ domestic investment strategy. Protectionist policies — especially toward China — are now a rare point on which many Democrats and Trump agree, relegating formerly bold Republican free traders to the sidelines.

The article goes on to provide some details of Emerson’s plans, particularly to spend $425 million on capital projects in the U.S., including $250 million for new manufacturing facilities.

And it’s not just Emerson:

Farr’s new take on U.S. investment reflects a broader questioning of overseas expansions, especially in China, for both political and operational reasons. A survey of top managers at 500 U.S. companies conducted in December by investment bank UBS AG found that 31 percent have moved or are moving production facilities to avoid tariffs. Fifty-eight percent said they expect tariffs to “have a positive impact on domestic investment.”

It’s not just the tariffs.  Farr seems to be disillusioned with manufacturing in China.

Forces beyond politics are pushing manufacturers like Emerson to reconsider investments in China, including rising labor and logistics costs there …

… Emerson’s renewed commitment to U.S. manufacturing is also part of a larger move by global manufacturers to produce more goods in the regions where they are consumed to save on transportation costs.

I believe there are other factors at work here too.  The domestic Chinese economy is flattening out at a far lower level than CEOs expected.  They dreamt of a nation of more than a billion people becoming western-style consumers in the mold of Americans, making China a market four times the size of America.  It hasn’t happened because gross overpopulation in China strangles their per capita consumption.  They built a lot of capacity in China to serve a market that never materialized – capacity that was then dependent on exports to make it profitable.  Along with higher wages and high shipping costs, Trump’s tariffs have eroded their profits even further.  Supplying the American market from China no longer makes sense.

This story, and the one I posted about yesterday – about BMW putting on hold its plans to export EV’s from China – are just tiny examples of the effect that tariffs have in driving manufacturing back to the U.S.  Just imagine the potential as this begins to snowball.  Imagine how many factories would have to be built and how many people would have to be hired to staff them to make all of the products you see on the shelves at the box stores today that are all sourced from China.  There would be an economic explosion in this country the likes of which haven’t been seen since the end of World War II.

The tide is turning against the failed concepts of free trade and globalization.  It’s crumbling right before our eyes.  The very fact that Reuters, a pro free trade and pro globalization publication until now, saw fit to even publish this information is evidence in itself of changing sentiment.

And kudos to Reuters for pointing out that Republicans were even more guilty than Democrats for pushing the free trade globalization agenda to the detriment of the American people, and that Trump has led the charge against it.  Nice to see that some on both sides of the aisle are getting on the bandwagon.

 

Advertisements

An Example of How Tariffs on China are Working

March 7, 2019

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-geneva-bmw-trade/bmws-china-electric-car-export-plans-on-hold-amid-tariff-uncertainty-idUSKCN1QO215

The above-linked Reuters article is just one example of how the tariffs on China, and the potential for those tariffs to be raised further, is already paying dividends for the American economy.  Reuters reports that BMW has put on hold its plans to export EVs (electric vehicles) to the U.S. from China.

BMW has factories in Europe, China and the United States and plans to establish China, the world’s largest market for electric cars, as an export hub for such vehicles, given its lower labor costs and support for zero-emission cars.

But Washington and Beijing are locked in a trade dispute, with U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to increase tariffs to 25 percent from 10 percent on $200 billion of Chinese goods if the two sides can’t reach a deal.

The uncertainty is making it hard for BMW to take a decision about exports, chief executive Harald Krueger said.

Free trade globalists no doubt would cite this as an example of how the American consumer comes out the loser.  That’s nonsense.  American consumers already have two excellent choices of EVs from Tesla and Chevrolet (the Bolt), and more are on the way.  Both the Tesla and the Bolt are priced about the same, at around $35,000.  Both are struggling to be profitable, especially as government subsidies are phased out.  They need every sale in the U.S. in order to survive.  Truth be told, they actually need to sell a lot more than they’re selling now to be profitable and survive.

What would happen if a BMW EV from China were thrown into the mix?  First of all, BMW would price their EV the same as the Tesla and the Bolt in spite of it being cheaper to build in China.  Like all companies, BMW is in business to make a profit, and they’ll want as much profit as they can get.  If priced the same as the other two cars, BMW will quickly take one third of the EV market from Tesla and Chevy.  In that event, it’s likely that the Chevy Bolt would go out of production while Tesla would be bankrupted.  BMW would then have the market to itself.  Without competition, American consumers would be the losers, and approximately 50,000 Americans would be put out of work at Tesla and Chevrolet.

This is just one small example.  If Trump follows through with raising the tariffs on Chinese imports, and especially if he follows through with plans to put 25% tariffs on all auto imports, domestic auto production will explode along with employment and wages in the auto and parts industries.  American consumers of everything will be the winners when they go shopping with more money in their pockets.


Auto Tariffs? Bring ’em on!

February 21, 2019

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-autos/automakers-brace-for-u-s-government-report-on-import-tariffs-idUSKCN1Q503G

A Commerce Department report that likely labels auto imports a national security threat which, under Section 232 of the World Trade Organization, would clear the way for Trump to impose tariffs, is now in Trump’s hands.  It could happen at any time now.  It’s impossible to overstate the consequences of such a move.  Without question, it would be the biggest shake-up in global trade since the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947.

Let’s begin with some perspective.  In 2018, 17.3 million cars and pickup trucks were sold in the U.S.  Of these, only about half of these vehicles were produced domestically.  The rest are imports.  Through November, the annualized value of imported cars in 2018 was approximately $180 billion.  The annualized value of auto parts was approximately $165 billion.  Together, that’s $345 billion worth of imported cars and trucks.  Roughly half of the cost to produce autos and parts is labor – about $172 billion.  If we assume that the average annual wage paid to auto workers is about $50,000, then that’s a total of about 3.5 million jobs that are lost to imports.

With that background, let’s take a look at the above-linked Reuters article about the possibility of Trump imposing a 25% tariffs on imported autos and parts.

The report’s recommendations may bring the global auto industry a step closer to its worst trade nightmare – U.S. tariffs on millions of imported cars and parts of up to 25 percent that many in the industry fear would add thousands of dollars to the cost of vehicles and potentially cost hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the U.S. economy.

While it may be a “nightmare” for the “global auto industry,” it would be a dream come true for domestic U.S. manufacturers.  A 25% tariff would indeed drive up the cost of imports by thousands of dollars, and could even increase the cost of domestic autos some, depending on the amount of imported parts used in their manufacture.  The net result?  It’s not hard to imagine.  If you were in the market for a new vehicle that currently costs $30,000, which would you buy?  An import that now costs $37,500 or a domestic that now costs maybe $31,000.  It’s a no-brainer, one that would be repeated millions of times per year by new car buyers.  The result is that domestic auto manufacturing would soon double in volume while imports would slow to a trickle.  It’s as simple as that.

So how can one claim that  “hundreds of thousands of jobs” would be lost throughout the U.S. economy?  It’s easy to make that claim as long as you’re talking only about jobs lost and don’t include job gains elsewhere.  Sure, there’d be lots of jobs lost (and a couple hundred thousand is feasible) in the distribution, sales and servicing of imported autos.  But the loss of those jobs would be offset ten-fold or more by gains in the manufacturing, distribution, sales and servicing of domestic autos, not to mention the jobs involved in building the required manufacturing facilities, including buildings and machinery.

And what about this?

Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, recently introduced legislation that would shift responsibility for Section 232 investigations from Commerce to the U.S. Defense Department. The law containing the provision was passed in 1962 to keep U.S. industries healthy to meet Cold War defense needs.

“There is no way that minivans from Canada are a national security threat,” Portman told reporters.

Portman is wrong on two levels.  First of all, every imported car and truck weakens our manufacturing sector.  That could be critical in a time of war.  Just as important as our victories in the battlefield that ultimately forced the surrender of Germany and Japan in World War II was America’s industrial might that supplied them with weapons and materials.  No other nation on earth could even come close to matching America’s industrial power.  By the end of World War II, America’s shipyards were building complete destroyers, from the keel up, in two days, and Ford’s Willow Run factory in Michigan cranked out B-24 bombers at the rate of one per hour around the clock, or 650 bombers per month.  That didn’t happen by magic.  It took a veritable army of men and women experienced in manufacturing.

Existential wars – wars fought for survival against an enemy bent on conquering you – like our war against the Axis powers in World War II, are wars of attrition.  Who wins and who loses is often determined by who runs out of something first.  It doesn’t have to be ammunition or tanks or ships.  It can be something as simple as boots.  Every nut and bolt counts.  The lack of even one component can grind a war machine to a halt.  Supply chains that depend on overseas suppliers can be quickly and easily disrupted.  In other words, it’s critical to our survival that we maintain a robust manufacturing base, one that can be quickly converted to a wartime footing to supply everything imaginable that we might need.  Anything that degrades that capability is a national security threat.

Secondly, our national debt – now over $22 trillion – has grown to the point at which it threatens the viability of our economy.  Our national debt is directly tied to our trade deficit.  Every dollar drained from our economy by purchases of imports must somehow be put back to work in the economy, and the only mechanism available to do that is through federal deficit spending, financed by the sale of debt to those countries awash in our trade dollars.  Our debt is now growing by nearly a trillion dollars per year, and the $345 billion trade deficit in autos and parts is a major contributor.  The trade deficit is, without question, a national security threat and every imported minivan that Senator Portman references is part of the problem.

Tariffs are the only mechanism at our disposal for restoring a balance of trade – something we haven’t had since 1975 – and applying tariffs on the import of autos and parts is critical if we are to have any hope of achieving that balance.  Tariffs can’t simply be used as leverage to force other nations into trade concessions because they’ll never willingly give up their trade surpluses, regardless of their promises, as we’ve seen time and again for many decades.  We need tariffs now and they need to be permanent.

 


October Trade Data Debunks Fake News About Harmful Effects of Tariffs

December 6, 2018

Don’t take my word for it.  Read the report yourself and delve into the details.  Here’s a link to the October trade data, released this morning by the Department of Commerce:  http://www.bea.gov/system/files/2018-12/trad1018.pdf.

We’ve all heard the stories.  The trade war between the U.S. and China is dragging down the global economy.  The manufacturing sector in China is slowing.  Retaliatory tariffs by China have virtually halted soybean exports from the U.S. and soybean prices are down.  Auto exports are in decline.  Tariffs on steel and aluminum are making the U.S. uncompetitive.  The October trade data makes clear that these stories are all a bunch of B.S. – lies spread by free trade globalists in the hope of heading off more and higher tariffs.

Let’s begin with the big picture.  The total trade deficit was only $0.07 billion off from the record set one month earlier.  Here’s the chart:  Balance of Trade.  In terms of the all-important category of manufactured goods, where the jobs are, the trade deficit broke the previous month’s record for the fourth consecutive month, blowing past last month’s record by $1.6 billion to a new record of $73.3 billion.  That’s an annual rate of $880 billion.  Take a look at this chart:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.  If that was a chart of your household spending, you would be in an absolute panic over the deterioration in your finances.

Now, as for those bogus stories about tariffs, let’s dig into the details of the report.  First, there’s the claim about China’s economy being dragged down.  See page 3 of the report.  The goods deficit with China rose to $38.2 billion (expressed in 2012 dollars).  That’s a new record.  If anything, the report understates just how bad the trade picture with China has gotten.  Check out the balance of trade with China in current dollars:  https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html.  The goods deficit with China has absolutely exploded, setting records for the past four consecutive months.  For all the whining you hear from Chinese officials, the truth is that they’re making more of a killing than ever before at the expense of American workers.

What about soybeans?  We’ve all seen the news reports about how much the tariffs have hurt American farmers.  It’s baloney.  Go to page 20 of the October trade report.  Soybean exports, while down a little in October,  year-to-date are running far ahead of the same time last year:  $24.1 billion vs. $19.4 billion in 2017.  The stories talk about how much exports to China have declined.  They don’t mention that the decline has been more than offset by an increase in soybean exports to Europe.  (Europe turned to the U.S. for its soybeans when China shifted its soybean sourcing to Brazil, displacing Europe from their Brazilian source and forcing them to the U.S.)  Given the year-to-date volume of exports, if prices are down now, it’s likely because of a glut in soybeans.

Auto exports?  See page 21.  They were down very slightly in October from September but, year-to-date, are up to $134.1 billion vs. $130.6 billion in 2017.  By the way, as reported on Monday, domestic vehicle sales in November held steady at the very high level of 17.5 million vehicles, debunking the whining by auto manufacturers that sales are in decline.

Steel and aluminum?  Both exports and imports are up.  Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I asked my nephew who works for a steel manufacturer in Indiana how their business is doing.  He reported that they had already blown past the sales record they set in 2017 by a substantial margin.

While the tariffs implemented so far have been too few and too small to have a dramatic impact on manufacturing repatriating to the U.S., there’s some very good news that you don’t hear about.  In October, thanks to the 10% tariff on steel and aluminum and the 10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports, federal revenue from these tariffs was approximately $30 billion, a significant contribution toward reducing the federal budget deficit.  If kept in place, those small tariffs alone would cut the annual budget deficit by $360 billion, or by about a third.  That’s huge, folks!  Just imagine what would happen if Trump applied the tariffs to all Chinese imports, and raises them to 25%, and also applies a 25% tariff to all auto imports.  We’d have our first balanced budget in decades, not to mention companies scrambling to build domestic manufacturing capacity!

So ignore all the doom and gloom and hand-wringing by the free trade globalists.  It’s all a bunch of baloney, meant to scare you and meant to apply political pressure to stop any further tariffs.  If everyone knew the truth, they’d be applauding the Trump administration for its trade policy and would be demanding more and higher tariffs.

 


Auto Tariffs on the Table

November 14, 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-autos/white-house-to-consider-commerce-department-auto-tariff-recommendations-officials-idUSKCN1NH2JP

There’s a lot in the above-linked article, reporting on the Trump administration’s consideration of tariffs on imported autos, that I can’t let pass without comment.  In short, the Commerce Department has submitted recommendations to the White House on whether and how to proceed with tariffs on imported autos and parts, based on its determination of whether auto imports pose a national security risk, something allowed under “Section 232” of the World Trade Organization rules.  The administration may hold off on implementation of tariffs, pending progress in talks with Europe and Japan aimed at restoring a balance of trade in autos and parts.

You may ask how auto imports pose a “national security risk.”  Good question.  I don’t know the administration’s rationale for it.  Imported cars themselves are surely not a risk.  It’s not as thought Toyota and VW and Honda and Mercedes and Hyundai and BMW have secretly planted bombs inside the cars.  The cars aren’t a risk.  However, what is definitely a national security risk is the enormous trade deficit in autos and parts.  There is no greater threat to the long-term viability of our economy than a big, sustained trade deficit that drives our budget deficit and national debt ever further out of control.  And we’ve now run a huge trade deficit for forty-three consecutive years.

The only mystery here is why the administration hasn’t acted already.  It’s becoming clear that the remaining globalists in Trump’s cabinet, like Larry Kudlow, Director of Trump’s Economic Council, and John Kelly, Trump’s Chief of Staff, have the upper hand over trade hawks like Trump’s trade advisor, Peter Navarro.  As a result, Trump is being sucked into the kind of endless “trade negotiations” that have paralyzed U.S. trade policy for decades.

But having the Commerce report ready for action would underscore a consistent threat from President Donald Trump – that he would impose tariffs on autos and auto parts unless the EU and Japan make trade concessions including lowering the EU’s 10 percent tariff on imported vehicles and cutting non-tariff barriers.

… Last month, the administration said it would open formal trade talks with the EU and Japan in early 2019 after the 90-day required congressional notification period ends.

Such talks are a complete waste of time.  Lowering barriers in the EU and Japan will make absolutely no difference in the trade deficit.  Europeans and Japanese don’t buy imported American cars because their countries are so crowded that their per capita consumption of vehicles is a fraction of that of Americans.  They don’t buy them because there’s no place to park cars and their roads are so crowded that they can’t make practical use of cars.  The only way to achieve a balance of trade in autos and parts is to keep their imports out.  Tariffs are the most effective method of doing that.

Of course, stories such as this are never complete until the free trade advocates have their chance to scare you with dire predictions.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, whose members include General Motors Co (GM.N), Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) and Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), warned the price of an imported car would increase nearly $6,000, while the price of a U.S.-built car would increase by $2,000.

A study released by a U.S. auto dealer group warned the tariffs could cut U.S. auto sales by 2 million vehicles annually and cost more than 117,000 auto dealer jobs, or about 10 percent of the workforce.

If the price of imports goes up by $6,000 while the price of domestically-manufactured cars goes up by only $2,000, which are you more likely to buy?  The answer is obvious, but the above-mentioned groups only want you to focus on the fact that the cost of all autos will increase.  They want you to think that you won’t be able to afford a car any more.  They hope that you’re too dumb to realize that shifting manufacturing back to the U.S. will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and will drive a demand for labor that will also drive wages higher – more than enough to offset any price increase.  U.S. auto sales won’t fall by 2 million vehicles annually.  They’ll actually increase as rising wages make cars more affordable.  And regarding the loss of auto dealer jobs (117,000 estimated in the article), you can bet that dealer jobs will be lost at the imports’ dealers if the foreign companies aren’t smart enough to begin building their cars in the U.S., but those folks will quickly find new work at GM, Ford and Chrysler.

Trump is wasting precious time by dithering with these worthless “trade negotiations.”  He needs to implement tariffs now and make them big enough – at least 25% – to have the desired effect, which is driving manufacturing back to the U.S.  Before the next elections in two years, Americans need to see tangible results in the form of a falling trade deficit and rising wages, or the globalists will surely regain the upper hand.


Low Wages Don’t Cause Trade Deficits!

July 31, 2018

Now that we’ve established (in previous recent posts) that it’s disparities in population density between the U.S. and its trading partners that causes our enormous trade deficit, let’s take a closer look at what role low wages might play.  Judging by the data we saw in the lists of America’s best and worst trade partners, there appeared to be little difference in the “purchasing power parity,”  or “PPP,” between the lists, suggesting that low wages (which track PPP) play no role.

Let’s begin by looking at America’s balance of trade with the twenty poorest nations in the world.  Here’s the list:  20 Poorest Nations.  First of all, you’ll notice that this list is dominated by poor African nations, with a few others like North Korea and Afghanistan thrown in.  The U.S. actually has a small trade surplus of just over a million dollars (an almost perfect balance of trade) with this group.  If low wages cause trade deficits, why doesn’t the U.S. have a huge trade deficit with this group of nations?  In the interest of fairness, I should point out that all foreign aid is booked as exports from the U.S., and the nations on this list are nearly all heavy recipients of U.S. foreign aid.

Let’s move on.  At the other end of the scale we have the twenty richest nations.  Since U.S. PPP is about $50,000, the U.S. would fall somewhere in the middle of this list.  So wages shouldn’t be much of a factor with this group.  Look at the list:  20 Richest Nations.  As you can see, we have a small trade deficit of $9 billion with this group of nations – virtually insignificant when compared to our total trade deficit in manufactured goods of $724 billion.

What we need to do is divide all of the world’s nations in half according to PPP and compare our balance of trade with the poorest half of nations to the richest half.  If we do that, the results are pretty startling.  With the poorest half of nations, the U.S. has a trade deficit in manufactured goods of $60.7 billion.  But with the richest half of nations, the deficit explodes to $663.5 billion!

How can we explain that?  First of all, to be honest, even the richest half of nations is made up almost entirely of nations that are poorer than the U.S.  Only about a dozen nations are richer than the U.S.  So one could argue that the low wage theory still holds.  Not true.  If it did, then it should be the poorest half of nations that we have the biggest trade deficit with, not the opposite.

The real explanation is that there is a relationship between trade and wages, but the cause and effect are quite the opposite of the “low wage theory.”  Low wages don’t cause trade deficits.  Instead, large trade surpluses like China, Germany and Japan have with the U.S., cause higher wages.  Manufacturing for export sops up excess labor supply and drives wages higher.

When the U.S. trades with poor but sparsely populated nations, they become wealthier but soon run out of labor.  Their now-wealthier populace becomes good customers for American products and trade levels off in a state of balance, more or less.

But when the U.S. trades with poor, badly overpopulated nations, wages rise but their overcrowded conditions leave them unable to consume products at anywhere near the rate needed to become customers for imported products.  Their oversupply of labor persists and a trade deficit with such a nation grows steadily worse.

America’s trade imbalance can never be resolved as long as it pursues policies that don’t target the real problem – disparities in population density.


Population Density Disparities Drive Global Trade Imbalances

July 14, 2018

In recent posts, we looked at lists of America’s best and worst trading partners in terms of the balance of trade in manufactured goods, and found strong evidence of a link to population density.  The lists of our biggest trade deficits, in both absolute and per capita terms, was dominated by densely populated nations like Germany, Japan and China.  The lists of our biggest trade surpluses was dominated by low population density nations, and by net oil exporters (caused by the fact that oil is traded in American dollars).

Now let’s include all nations*, dividing them equally around the global median population density (which is 194 people per square mile).  Look at this chart:  Balance of Trade Above & Below Median Pop Density.  With those half of nations below the median population density, the U.S. enjoyed a small surplus of trade in manufactured goods of $36 billion in 2017.  However, with those half of nations above the median population density, the U.S. suffered an enormous deficit of $761 billion.  Also, note how the disparity has dramatically worsened over the 14-year time period from 2005 to 2018.  The longer the U.S. attempts to engage in free trade indiscriminately, ignoring the role of population density, the worse the effects become.

One may argue that perhaps dividing the nations of the world around the median population density skews the results, since the more densely populated half of nations includes far more people than the less densely populated half.  Fine.  Let’s divide the world in a way that compares the half of people who live in more densely populated conditions vs. the half of people who live in less densely populated conditions.  If we do that, in 2017 the U.S. had a trade deficit in manufactured goods of $510 billion with the half of people living in more densely populated conditions, and a deficit of only $214 billion – less than half – with the half of people living in less densely populated conditions.  Still a strong correlation to population density.

But maybe that’s not the right way to look at it either.  Perhaps we should divide the world in half according to land mass – that is, the half of the world’s surface area that is less densely populated vs. the half that is more densely populated.  (No, Antarctica is not included in this analysis.)  If we do that, the results are even more dramatic.  With the half of the world’s surface that is more densely populated (accounting for 6.6 billion of the world’s 7.1 billion people), we had a trade deficit in manufactured goods in 2017 of $831 billion.  With the less densely populated half of the world, we had a trade surplus of $107 billion.  (It’s worth noting here that the split occurs at a population density of 56 people/square mile.  That is, the less densely populated half of the world has a population density of 56 or less.  The more densely populated half is greater than 56.  The population density of the U.S. is about 90.)

Think about that.  This means that the U.S. economy would fare much better if the population of the more densely populated half of the world were no greater than the less densely populated half – which would yield a world population of about 1 billion people instead of 7.1 billion.  Instead of a net trade deficit in manufactured goods of $724 billion, we’d have a trade surplus of $214 billion (double the trade surplus that we currently have with the less densely populated half of the world).  One can debate what would be an optimum population density in economic terms, but there’s no question that this is a powerful argument for factoring population density into our trade policy.  Beyond that, it also debunks in a strong way the contention of economists that an ever-growing population is essential to sustaining a healthy economy.  It does nothing of the sort.  Instead, the crowded conditions that characterize a dense population stifle consumption – and thus employment – making people dependent on manufacturing for export to escape poverty.

_____________________________________________

* Not all nations are included in the study.  Tiny island nations have been omitted since they don’t factor into the trade equation and, while such nations tend to be densely populated, they also enjoy unique economies, based primarily on tourism.