Why Population Density Drives America’s Trade Imbalance

November 21, 2019

The Problem:

In my last few posts, we’ve seen a powerful correlation between America’s trade imbalances and the population density of its trading partners.  But how does that work?  It seems odd – something that seems highly unlikely to be a factor.  And you’ve likely never heard of it before.  What you have heard about are a host of other “factors,” things like low wages, trade barriers, intellectual property theft, lax labor and environmental standards, just to name a few.  All of them seem like more plausible explanations for trade imbalances than something like “population density.”

The reason population density has such a powerful effect on trade is what it does to the per capita consumption of products.  Beyond a certain critical population density, over-crowding begins to rapidly erode people’s need for and ability to use (or “consume”) virtually every product you can think of, with the exception of food.  At first glance, you might think that’s a good thing.  Everyone lives more efficiently, reducing their environmental footprint and their demand for natural resources.  However, the real problem is that per capita employment is tied directly to per capita consumption.  Every product not bought is another worker that is out of work.  As population density continues to grow beyond that critical level, an economy is rapidly transformed from one that is self-sufficient and enjoys full employment to one with a labor force that is bloated out of proportion to its market, making it dependent on other nations to sop up its excess labor or, put another way, making it dependent on manufacturing products for export to rescue it from what would otherwise be an unemployment crisis.

Let’s consider an example.  The dwelling space of the average citizen of Japan, a nation ten times as densely populated as the U.S., is less than one third that of the average American.  It’s not hard to imagine why.  In such crowded conditions, it’s only natural that people will find it impractical to live in single-family homes in the suburbs and will instead opt for smaller apartments.  Now think of all the products that go into the construction of dwellings – lumber, concrete, steel, drywall, wiring, plumbing, carpeting – literally thousands of products.  And think of furnishings and appliances.  A person living in a dwelling that is less than one third the size of another consumes less than a third of all of those products compared to someone living in less crowded conditions.  And what about the products used to maintain the lawns and gardens of single-family homes?  Consumption of those products doesn’t just reduce – it vanishes altogether.

Consequently, per capita employment in those industries involved in building, furnishing and maintaining dwellings in Japan is less than a third of that in America.  So what are all of those unemployed Japanese to do?  Will they be put to work building cars for domestic consumption?  Hardly.  As you can imagine, the per capita consumption of vehicles by people living in such crowded conditions is impacted dramatically as most opt for mass transit.  So emaciated is the Japanese auto market that even Japanese automakers have trouble selling cars there.  So now add to the workers who aren’t employed in the home industry those workers who also aren’t employed building cars for their domestic market.

And so it goes with virtually every product you can think of.  Japan is an island nation surrounded by water.  Yet their per capita consumption of products for the boating industry is virtually zero compared to other nations, simply because it’s so crowded.  There’s only so much marina space to go around.  Put a town of 100 families next to a marina with 100 slips and it’s likely that every single family will own a boat with a motor and fishing gear.  Put a city of a million families next to that same marina and, though the marina is still full, on a “per capita” basis boat ownership has effectively fallen to zero.

Japan’s only hope for employing its badly under-utilized labor force is to use them to manufacture products for export.  This is exactly why America’s second largest trade deficit in manufactured goods is with Japan.  It’s not so much that we buy too much stuff from Japan.  The problem is that Japan buys so little from us in return.  It’s not that they don’t want to.  They can’t.  Their market is so emaciated by over-crowding that they can’t even consume their own domestic production.  Why would they buy more from us?  The same is true of nearly every major U.S. trading “partner” that is badly over-crowded.  Attempting to trade freely – without tariffs or other barriers – is tantamount to economic suicide.  It’s virtually certain to yield a huge trade deficit.

Why have I never heard of this before?

Few, aside from those who follow this blog or have read my book, have ever heard of this before.  Even if you have a degree in economics, you’ve never heard of it.  In fact, you were likely taught the opposite.  If you studied economics, at some point you were surely introduced to the late-18th century economist Malthus, and were warned to never give any credence to any theories that revolved around over-population, lest you be derided as a “Malthusian,” which would surely doom your career as an economist.

In 1798, Thomas Robert Malthus published his essay titled “Essay on Population” in which he warned that a growing population would outstrip our ability to meet the need for food, effectively dooming mankind to a fate of “misery and vice.”  This led to the field of economics being dubbed “the dismal science,” something that really rankled other economists.  Yet, the idea gained some traction until, that is, as years passed and improvements in farming productivity exceeded the requirements of a growing population.  The other sciences mocked the field of economics unmercifully, proclaiming that mankind is ingenious enough to overcome any and all obstacles to growth.  Economists acquiesced and vowed to never, ever again give any consideration to any concerns about overpopulation.

And so it is today that economists have a huge blind spot when it comes to the subject of population growth.  You can’t discover something that you’re not even willing to look at.  It’s not unlike the medieval Catholic Church labeling Galileo a heretic for theorizing that the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice versa.  Where would we be today if the study of astronomy ended at that point?  Where would we be if Newton was mocked for his theory of gravity and the field of physics ended at that point?  That’s what economists have done.  They’ve turned their backs on what is arguably the most dominant variable in economics.

What does this mean for trade policy?

In the wake of the Great Depression, soon followed by World War II, economists disingenuously laid blame for what had transpired on U.S. tariffs and, eager to put to the test the theory of free trade, promised that it would put an end to such wars and depressions.  So, in 1947, the U.S. signed the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, taking the first step to implement the concept of free trade on a global basis.  Within three decades, the trade surplus the U.S. had enjoyed was wiped out.  In 2018, the U.S. ran its 44th consecutive annual trade deficit which, by the way, set a record in 2018 and continues to worsen.

The problem is that the concept of free trade doesn’t take into consideration the role of population density in making over-crowded nations absolutely dependent on running trade surpluses in manufactured goods, and simultaneously sapping the life from the manufacturing sector of other nations.  No amount of trade negotiations can correct this imbalance.  No nation that is dependent on manufacturing for export would ever agree to anything that would slow their exports and it’s impossible for them to increase their imports because, after all, it’s their emaciated market that has caused the trade imbalance in the first place.  The only way to restore a balance of trade is to force the issue through the use of either tariffs or import quotas.  Any trade policy that doesn’t employ those tactics when trading with badly over-crowded nations is doomed to failure and puts our overall economy at risk.

Since World War II, other presidents have tinkered with tariffs in those rare instances when the World Trade Organization has green-lighted their use to correct for some other nations’ trade transgressions.  But President Trump is the first president in seven decades to implement a significant tariff program aimed at reducing our trade imbalance with China.  But much, much more needs to be done.  There are many other nations whose trade imbalances on a per capita basis are much worse, nations like Germany, Japan, Mexico, Ireland, South Korea, Taiwan and a host of others.  While many are allies, none of them are “allies” when it comes to trade.  All are eager to sustain and even grow their trade imbalances at the expense of American workers and families.  All want the U.S. economy to bear the cost for their overpopulation.  None want to face their own problems.  The U.S. needs to put an end to pointless – even counterproductive – trade negotiations, and do the things that are within our power to force the restoration of a balance of trade.

 


Population Density Effect on Trade Imbalance Intensified in 2018

November 18, 2019

In previous posts, we’ve noted the apparent role of population density at both ends of the spectrum of our trade imbalances – the top deficits and surpluses in manufactured goods.  Now let’s look at the world as a whole.  Let’s include all 165 nations in the study and let’s divide those nations equally around the median population density (which is 192 people per square mile), such that there are 82 nations with densities above the median and 83 nations below the median.  Look at this chart:  Deficits Above & Below Median Pop Density.

With the half of nations with population densities above the median we had a deficit of $815 billion in manufactured goods in 2018.  With the other half of nations we had a deficit of only $0.5 billion (the first deficit with that group of nations since 2005).  $815 billion vs. $0.5 billion.  Same number of nations.  How much more obvious can it be that population density is, by far and away, the single biggest force in driving trade imbalances?  How much more evidence do you need?

More?  “That’s not a fair comparison,” you might say.  “The half of nations that are more densely populated have a lot more people than the other half.  There needs to be the same number of people included in each group.”  OK, fair enough.  Let’s divide the world in half by population.  Half of the world’s population lives in more densely populated conditions, and half lives in less densely populated conditions.  In order to divide the world that way, however, the dividing line falls on China.  Not surprising since that country has one fifth of the world’s population.  So to make the populations of the two halves equal, almost 40% of China’s population – a nation with a population density four times that of the U.S. – must be included with the half of people living in “less densely populated” conditions.  Nevertheless, if we do that, and if we allocate 40% of our trade deficit with China to the less densely populated half, the result is that we still have a trade deficit (in manufactured goods) of $557 billion with the half of people living in more densely populated conditions and a trade deficit of $259 billion with the less densely populated half of the world’s population.  The trade imbalance is still more than double with the more densely populated half.

If we include all of China in the more densely populated half of people, then the split of people is 4.15 billion vs. 3 billion.  If we do that, the deficit with the more densely populated “half” of people is $730 billion vs. $86 billion for the less densely populated “half” – 8-1/2 time bigger.

I would argue that an even better comparison is to divide the world in half by land area:  the half of the world that is more densely populated vs. the half that is less densely populated.  If we factor out Antarctica and the United States (because we are evaluating our trade partners), the world’s land surface area is 47.3 million square miles.  If we divide that in half by population density, we find that 6.66 of the 7.15 billion people occupy the more densely-populated half of the world’s surface area while the other half of the world holds only 0.49 billion people.  With that more densely-populated half of the word we have a trade deficit in manufactured goods of $923 billion and a trade surplus of $107 billion with the less densely populated half.  That’s a difference of over one trillion dollars in trade with the more densely populated half of the world vs. the less densely populated half.

Finally, let’s look at one more split – probably the most relevant:  the nations more densely populated than the U.S. vs. the less densely populated nations.  The U.S. has a population density of approximately 92 people per square mile.  114 of our trading partners are more densely populated and 41 are less densely populated.  With those more densely populated we have a trade deficit in manufactured goods of $934 billion vs. a surplus of $119 billion with those less densely populated.  Again, that’s a difference of over one trillion dollars!

Clearly, any trade policy that doesn’t take population density into account is virtually guaranteed to yield absolutely horrible results, yet that’s exactly what the U.S. does.  It completely ignores population density and attempts to trade freely with everyone regardless of population density.  And in a few decades it’s transformed the U.S. from the world’s preeminent industrial power and the wealthiest nation on earth into a virtual skid row bum, plunging us into $20 trillion of debt.

But why is population density such a factor?  I could write a book on the subject.  Actually I already did.  It’s what this blog is all about.  But I’ll summarize it for you in the next post.  Stay tuned!


“Slow-Turkey” Trade Policy

July 8, 2019

Like the animated “slow turkey” we’ve all seen on the TV ads for a quit-smoking medication, Trump’s trade policy is also taking the “slow turkey” approach.

As announced by the Commerce Department on Wednesday, the trade deficit jumped back up in May to $55.2 billion from $51.2 billion in April, but this was still below the peak of $60.8 billion in December.  (Here’s the full release from the Commerce Department:  https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2019-07/trad0519.pdf.)

More importantly, the deficit in manufactured goods also rebounded in May to $71.1 billion, up from $67.9 billion in April.  It too, however, was below the all-time record of $76.5 billion set in December.  Here’s a chart of the deficit in manufactured goods:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.

Based upon these figures, it’s difficult to see that Trump’s policy of using tariffs to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. is having any effect.  Look more closely, though, and you’ll find that things are starting to happen.  The deficit with China rose again in May, but to “only” $30.2 billion, from $26.9 billion in April and $20.7 billion in March.  But this rise follows a seasonal pattern.  The fact is that the deficit with China has been down from the same month in 2018 every single month so far this year.  The year-to-date deficit with China is $137.1 billion through May, compared to $152.2 billion for the same period in 2018.  And let’s not forget that the U.S. is now collecting a lot of revenue from half of Chinese imports – approximately $5 billion in May – an annualized rate of $60 billion.  If and when Trump imposes a 25% tariff on the other half of Chinese imports, that revenue figure will double to $120 billion per year and will further cut our deficit with China.

Yes, China is retaliating with tariffs of their own, and exports to China have dropped slightly, but imports from China have fallen much more – the net result being a lower trade deficit, which is a boost to the U.S. economy.  What about the stories about how bad America’s farmers are being hurt by this trade war?  Baloney.  Look at page 19 of the report.  Exports of “foods, feeds, and beverages” year-to-date is running almost dead even with last year.  Exports of soybeans, which get so much attention, are running 7% ahead of last year.  And overall exports are up by $2 billion from last year.

Recently, Trump announced in the wake of his G20 meeting with Red China’s dictator Xi that he is holding off the implementation of the 25% tariff on the remainder of Chinese imports that he has threatened, pending a new round of trade negotiations with China.  We can see a pattern emerging in Trump’s style of trade policy.  He’s all warm and fuzzy when meeting with global leaders like Xi, then takes the tough action when the lower-level negotiations don’t measure up.  Maybe it’s a smart approach, effectively inoculating the business world against the Chicken Little, “the sky is falling” dire warnings of trade war consequences.  The unfounded fears dissipate when the trade war is rolled out slowly and nothing bad happens.  The free trade fear mongers are losing credibility.  Each new round of tariffs gets more of a ho-hum response.

Who’s been the biggest beneficiary of the tariffs on China so far?  Mexico.  While the trade deficit with others like Germany and Japan is either stagnant or declining (South Korea), the deficit with Mexico is growing rapidly as manufacturers who have been leaving China in droves (a few examples of which are reported here:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-strategy-tech/hp-dell-other-tech-firms-plan-to-shift-production-out-of-china-nikkei-idUSKCN1TY14G) look for their next best (low cost) solution.  Some manufacturing is coming back to the U.S., but a lot is going to Mexico.

Under current NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) rules, that may look like a smart move.  But that landscape is changing too – in “slow turkey” fashion.  A new agreement has been negotiated and is pending approval by Congress, and Trump has repeatedly threatened tariffs on Mexico imports, most recently in his effort to force Mexico to take a tougher stand against Central American immigrants.  Those companies moving to Mexico now may be throwing good money after bad and regret not facing the inevitable – that America’s tolerance of perpetual, huge trade imbalances has reached the end of the line.

This “slow turkey” approach to trade policy is frustrating for a “cold turkey” like me.  The “cold turkey” approach would already be yielding bigger benefits for American workers.  But I’ll concede that a “slow turkey” approach may be more sustainable in an environment where free trade globalists still command the attention of the media and are influential in what happens in global stock markets.  The benefits for workers may not be sustainable if investors are taking it on the chin.

It looks like the “slow turkey” approach is just beginning to show positive results.  The American economy, including the manufacturing sector, is doing well while others are faltering.  If this approach de-fangs the critics as their trade war hysteria falls flat, and the political climate becomes favorable for an 8-year “slow turkey” transformation of trade policy instead of a 4-year “cold turkey” that ultimately yields nothing more than a lame duck dead turkey, then I’m all for it.

 


Trade Deficit “Unexpectedly”(?) Narrows

June 8, 2019

https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/top-news/201906061158RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_KCN1T71LA-OUSBS_1

As reported in the above-linked Reuters article, America’s trade deficit fell slightly to $50.8 billion in April.  More importantly, the deficit in manufactured goods fell to $68 billion, it’s lowest level since June of last year.  The decline was due to a drop of $5.9 billion in imports, partially offset by a $5.2 billion drop in exports.

The reporting in the article seems to be intentionally misleading to promote a pro-free trade, pro-globalism agenda.  First of all, the article reports that the deficit “unexpectedly narrowed.”  Why “unexpectedly?”  I, and anyone who understands how tariffs work to restore a balance of trade, have been expecting it for months.

Then there’s this:

“U.S. trade with the world is slowing dramatically and the odds are rising that the economy is going to take a big hit,” said Chris Rupkey, chief economist at MUFG in New York.

“Globalization and expanded trade between nations benefited everyone and now the reductions in trade volumes between nations are going to subtract those benefits worldwide from everyone.”

The facts are that the economy is actually doing very well, especially in the U.S.  Globalization didn’t benefit everyone.  America’s manufacturing sector was devastated, turning a nation that was an industrial powerhouse into a skid row bum, economically speaking.

And this:

The politically sensitive goods trade deficit with China surged 29.7% to $26.9 billion. The gap with Mexico fell 14.1% to $8.2 billion in April.

Well, yeah, the deficit with China rose in April from March, but March was the lowest deficit with China in five years.  The Reuters article failed to mention that the 3-month trailing average deficit with China, which factors out month-to-month volatility, fell to its lowest level since April of 2014.  The data about Mexico is also misleading.  While the gap fell with Mexico in April from March, the 3-month trailing average rose to its highest level ever as manufacturers flee China for Mexico to avoid tariffs and to reduce their high shipping costs.

The tariffs on China are working, a fact more accurately covered in this article:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-mexico-manufacturers/under-tariff-threat-mexico-less-attractive-to-companies-avoiding-china-trade-war-idUSKCN1T82HB.

Take the recent experience of outsourcing firm Tecma Group, which saw a surge in interest from companies mulling a move to Mexico as Trump raised tariffs to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods.

Tecma, which manages some 75 factories in Mexico, had been approached “every week” by companies selling items from furniture to ink pens seeking a pathway out of China and into Mexico, according to Alan Russell, its chief executive and chairman.

…  data showing Mexico emerging as the top U.S. trading partner as China exports less to the United States, combined with anecdotal evidence, suggest a significant trend.

… “Whatever we are doing in Mexico is for our company’s long-term strategic growth … If we produce in Mexico we’ll a save a lot on freight and it will reduce the time for delivery. It’s a huge advantage,” said (Fuling Global Inc.) CFO Gilbert Lee.

… Similarly, camera maker GoPro Inc decided in early May to move most of its U.S.-bound production to Mexico from China to “insulate us against possible tariffs,” Chief Financial Officer Brian McGee told investors at the time.

… In fact, Mexico overtook both China and Canada in the first quarter of 2019 to become the U.S.’s top trading partner in goods, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

This is proof positive that the tariffs on China are working, forcing manufacturers to flee in search of a better deal.  The fact that, for now, they’re finding a better deal in Mexico instead of returning immediately to domestic manufacturing in the U.S. isn’t all bad news.  Mexico is a nation with only one tenth of the population of China, and with a GDP (gross domestic product) per capita that’s approximately 25% higher than China’s.  That means that Mexico doesn’t have enough slack labor force to take on all of the manufacturing currently done in China.  The demand for labor will quickly drive wages that are already higher in Mexico than in China even higher, to the point where manufacturing in Mexico has no advantage over the U.S.

The data shows that the tariffs are really beginning to work.

 

 

 


American consumers, rise up against American workers!

June 5, 2019

First Trump raised tariffs on Chinese imports and, as the media proclaims, American consumers are the ones who’ll get hurt, paying higher prices for nearly everything.  Now Trump has threatened across-the-board tariffs on all Mexican imports.  Again, American consumers will pay the price, with everything from cherry tomatoes and avocados to cars and trucks rising in price.  Who’s responsible for this?  Trump!  And who’s responsible for Trump getting elected?  American workers, fed up with no raises and losing their jobs to outsourcing!  How selfish of them!

Enough is enough!  It’s time for American consumers to rise up against these greedy American workers!  Do you know one?  Boycott their products!  Demonstrate in front of their businesses!  Write your congressmen!  March on Washington!

What’s that you say?  You know an American worker?  Your spouse is one?  Your mom or dad?  You’re actually one yourself!?!?  Shame on you!  If your spouse or your parents are American workers, maybe you can sit them down and explain to them how greedy they are.  Perhaps they should quit fighting for their jobs – may even just quit altogether.  If we can import everything a little cheaper, then we’ll all be better off.  Won’t we?

Obviously, I’m being facetious.  But this is exactly what the media would have you believe.  Every single story on the subject focuses on the higher costs for American consumers.  They never, ever want you to hear that the real long-term effect of tariffs is to provide motivation for companies to manufacture products domestically, which will benefit every American worker as the demand for labor drives wages higher, benefitting every single American – even those who aren’t in the labor force, but are dependent on someone who is.  Why?  Because corporations see the developing world – places like China and Mexico and many others – as the source of future profit growth.  America is fully developed, with little potential for profit growth.  They’re bored with America.  To them, America is yesterday’s news and Americans are irrelevant to the future.  Their strategy is to milk America’s wealth to fund development in the rest of the world, and to scare the hell out of them if they even think about standing up for themselves.

Since every American is a consumer, while just under half are workers, the free-trader globalists see focusing on consumer prices as a winning strategy in their fight against tariffs.  They’re counting on the majority of Americans who are not in the labor force to forget that they are dependent on someone who is.

Ask yourself this:  which is a better situation – to be unemployed while prices are slightly lower, or to have a good-paying job while having to pay slightly higher prices?  The answer is obvious.  Without a source of income, you can afford nothing.  Many people have committed suicide after losing their jobs and all hope of a secure retirement.  None that I’m aware of have committed suicide because the price of something rose a little.

Besides, the whole notion that we are paying lower prices for these imports is a myth.  When did the price of anything actually go down when it was outsourced to China or Mexico?  When did the Consumer Price Index actually drop?  Did the price of cars drop when they moved the factory to Mexico?  Did the price of iPhones drop when they moved production to China?  Of course not.  The narrative that says prices will soar if we have to manufacture domestically is nothing more than a scare tactic.  They hope you’re not bright enough to realize that the higher wages they’d be paying American workers will offset any small price increases.

Do you really think that all of this outsourcing – all of the enormous expenditures involved in rebuilding factories and infrastructure overseas and moving their sources as far from their customer base as they possibly could – that all of it was done in the interest of saving you a few bucks?  Don’t be ridiculous.  It was all done in pursuit of those markets.  It’s not saving you a thing.  So there’s nothing to fear from moving manufacturing back to the U.S.

It’s been said that these tariffs on Mexico will jeopardize passage of the new trade deal that the Trump administration worked for over a year to get signed with Mexico.  Why would he risk that?  I believe it’s because he’s actually quite unhappy with that deal.  Those negotiations began early on in his presidency when he was heavily influenced by the team of advisers he had assembled – a team he thought represented the best people he could find – people who ultimately proved to be free trade globalists interested not in “making America great again,” but in token moves that would leave the status quo firmly entrenched while creating the appearance of doing something.

Trump hates that deal.  He’s since learned the power and effectiveness of tariffs and wishes he’d slapped them on Mexico from the beginning.  Most of the people involved in that deal have left the administration, replaced by people who actually support his trade agenda.  And he also knows that the odds of that deal being passed by a do-nothing Congress are slim to none, leaving the horrible, existing NAFTA deal in place.

Mexico might retaliate with tariffs of their own on American exports?  I hope they do.  It’d be the dumbest move they could make, only stiffening Trump’s resolve to raise our tariffs further and make them stick.

Finally, a note of thanks to investors who buy into the baloney that these tariffs are going to hurt the economy and sell their stocks in a panic.  I’m the guy who buys them at the big discount you’ve created!

 


Tariff news coverage makes me want to scream!

May 13, 2019

The simple-minded, sound-byte news coverage of the tariffs on China just makes me want to scream.  “Trump lied!  China isn’t paying for the tariffs!  American consumers are going to pay!  It’s going to cost every household $1,000 per year in higher prices!  A million jobs will be lost! China will retaliate with tariffs on American imports!  American farmers are getting killed by the loss of exports to China!”

I could go on.  The list of ways in which the sky is falling is endless as every business failure or challenge is now blamed on the tariffs on China.

The problem with the warnings that I’ve singled out above is that there is some truth to all of it – but only a half-truth.  Less than half, actually.  But the media sees an opportunity to stir up Trump hysteria, and hysteria always stirs more interest than factual, balanced reporting.  It’s the very reason that the evening news on every channel begins with a frantic proclamation of “BREAKING NEWS!!!” delivered breathlessly by a news anchor in a tone of voice that sounds like he/she just stopped in to the studio while fleeing the apocalypse to warn us all to run for our lives.  Then you find out it’s not breaking news at all, but some damn thing that happened earlier in the day – something of little significance to 99.9% of the viewing audience – that some reporter just found a new little twist on the story.  And so it is with the story about the tariffs on China.

So I’m here to lend some balance to the tariff story.  Let’s take the above claims one-by-one.

  1.   “Trump lied!  China isn’t paying for the tariffs!  Etc.”  Maybe he did mislead us a bit with this one, as it actually is the importer that will pay the tariff, not the Chinese exporter.  However, in some cases, those are one and the same, since Chinese exporters have set up importing companies in the U.S.  Regardless, China will pay in a big way and China will be hurt badly, much worse than the U.S.  Chinese companies will be pressured to cut their prices to offset the tariffs paid by the importers, and they will, in many cases perhaps offsetting the entire tariff.  They may actually sell their products below cost, wiping out all profit for the Chinese company and all revenue that the Chinese government would have collected.  Chinese exports will fall dramatically as American companies find new, cheaper sources for their products.  Unemployment and civil unrest in China will rise.  China’s ability to fund its military expansion will be badly crippled.
  2. “American consumers are going to pay … $1,000 per year in higher prices!”  Yeah.  No one has ever denied that.  But what’s missing here is the fact that someone is going to give you $2,000 per year – maybe more – to cover it.  Who’s going to do that?  Your employer.  If not your current employer, your new employer – the one who just built a factory in your town to make some product that’s now too expensive to be imported from China.  Uncle Sam will be chipping in too.  Now that he’s collecting revenue from importers – that is, from people who still insist on buying the now-expensive Chinese imports, he has room to cut your income taxes without blowing up the federal budget.  Don’t like paying the tariff on the import?  Then don’t.  Buy the cheaper American-made alternative.
  3. “A million jobs will be lost!”  This one isn’t even a half-truth.  It’s an outright lie perpetrated by globalist economists who don’t like American efforts to restore a balance of trade.  They arrive at this figure by assuming that consumers won’t be able to afford the higher prices and will stop spending, forcing retailers to lay off workers throughout the supply chain – shipyard workers, truck drivers, warehouse workers, people stocking shelves and working cash registers.  They hope it won’t dawn on you that people will immediately seek out cheaper alternatives and will quickly find them in new products provided by new companies and entrepreneurs who have seized on the opportunity.  Truth be told, if the trade deficit with China were completely eliminated, as it will be if both sides escalate their tariffs higher and higher, the U.S. would add several million manufacturing jobs to its economy, not to mention the jobs involved in building that manufacturing capacity.
  4. “China will retaliate with tariffs on American imports!”  Maybe, but not if they’re smart.  Don’t forget that the real prize here to restore a balance of trade with China.  Any combination of imports and exports that gets us to that point yields the same positive benefit for the American economy.  If China wants to choke off U.S. exports altogether, then we can achieve a balance of trade by completely choking off Chinese imports.  We’re still the big winner and China will be an even bigger loser.
  5. “American farmers are getting killed … !”  Hogwash.  While farmers’ exports to China may be taking a hit, the free-trade globalists don’t want you to know that farmers are more than making up for it by increased exports to other countries.  It’s easy to verify this for yourself.  Just look at the trade report published monthly by the Commerce Department.  Farm exports (including the much-publicized soybeans) were actually up in 2018 and year-to-date in 2019 are running ahead of 2018 exports.  I also read a story that blamed the demise of family farms on the China tariffs.  More hogwash.  Family farms have been vanishing for decades, unable to compete with the huge corporate farms that are swallowing them up.

Higher prices that are more than offset by higher wages are a good thing, not a bad thing.  That’s the very mechanism that has enabled our standard of living to advance.  We all pay higher prices for every product than we did in the past, but we have a higher standard of living because the demand for labor has driven our wages higher.  “Wages aren’t higher today,” you may say.  Yeah, and why is that?  It’s because of our huge trade imbalance, the very thing Trump is tackling with these tariffs.

If all Americans understood the truth about trade and the damage that huge trade deficits do to an economy, we’d all be cheering for Trump – Republicans and Democrats alike.  We’ve been in a trade war for decades and have been losing badly.  Finally we have someone willing to take up the fight.  That’s the truth.


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.