Is the “Phase 1” trade deal with China a bad deal?

January 20, 2020

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-details-factbox/whats-in-the-u-s-china-phase-1-trade-deal-idUSKBN1ZE2IF

The above-linked Reuters article provides a breakdown in basic terms of what’s included in the “Phase 1” trade deal with China.  To make it easier to understand – and in preparation for tracking progress – I’ve created this spreadsheet, which shows what China has agreed to in terms of boosting its imports from the U.S.  Phase 1 China Trade Deal.

In addition, China agreed to:

… stronger Chinese legal protections for patents, trademarks, copyrights, including improved criminal and civil procedures to combat online infringement, pirated and counterfeit goods.

…  follow through on previous pledges to eliminate any pressure for foreign companies to transfer technology to Chinese firms

… refrain from directly supporting outbound investment aimed at acquiring foreign technology

… refrain from competitive currency devaluations

China’s retaliatory Dec. 15 tariffs, including a 25% tariff on U.S.-made autos, have been suspended.

So what did the U.S. give up in return?

… will cut by half the tariff rate it imposed on Sept 1. on a $120 billion list of Chinese goods, to 7.5%.

Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on Dec. 15 on nearly $160 billion worth of Chinese goods, including cellphones, laptop computers, toys and clothing, are suspended indefinitely.

That’s the deal in a nutshell.  On the surface, it sounds like a good deal, boosting exports by $200 billion per year.  But don’t be fooled.  This deal rolls back some existing tariffs and suspends new tariffs – tariffs that were making rapid progress toward restoring a balance of trade with China – in exchange for nothing more than promises, and China has a long history of breaking its trade promises.  China got exactly what it wanted – time – more time to continue business as usual.

With this deal, the U.S. is once again trying to export its way out of its massive trade deficit.  It’s similar to the vow that Obama made in January of 2010 to double export within five years.  It didn’t happen.  Not even close.  It’s impossible to export your way out of a trade deficit with nations whose gross over-crowding makes them utterly dependent on manufacturing for export to sustain their bloated labor forces.  And that’s China, among others.

Aside from their promise to boost imports, that promise about protecting intellectual property has been made many times before.  It’s untrackable and meaningless.  And currency manipulation?  The data proves that trade deficits have nothing to do with currency valuation.

The only hope is that the Trump administration will be more diligent than previous administrations in holding China’s feet to the fire, returning to the use of tariffs when China fails to meet its commitments.  China’s betting they won’t, and that future administrations will roll over like previous administrations.

I’ll begin tracking China’s progress on meeting its import commitments (or lack thereof) beginning with the January trade data, which isn’t released until March.


Case Study on Shifting Production Out of China

January 15, 2020

https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/top-news/202001140706RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_KBN1ZD1FV-OUSBS_1

The above-linked article provides an interesting example of a small company trying to move production out of China to avoid the tariffs.  This is a low volume, niche bicycle company.  Some of the points made in the article merit comment:

After months of research and several trips, a small Taiwanese factory agreed to make his bikes but he had to triple orders and pay 30% of the cost of goods up front, unlike in China where he paid upon delivery.

The new terms locked up as much as $1 million of working capital until the bikes were shipped and required a new credit line. After a year of toil, State Bicycle managed to shift production of only two of its five models which are sold in the United States.

Let’s step back and take a look at this situation.  Bear in mind, we’re talking about bicycles here.  Bicycles are not terribly sophisticated nor difficult to make.  The biggest components – the frame and the handlebars – are nothing more than bent and welded tubing.  Tools to bend and weld tubing are readily available at low cost right here in the U.S.  Beyond that, we’re talking about rims, hubs, spokes, sprockets, bearings, axles, chain, a seat, tires and little else.  The million dollars of working capital and the money spent on those trips to Taiwan could have easily purchased the tooling to make those parts right here.  How much sense did it make to spend months of globe-trotting like a chicken with your head cut off, and all that money?

In a move to help bicycle companies, the Trump administration has been granting tariff exclusions to some of their imports since September. The relief, however, is only for a year and is meant to give them more time to move production – ideally to the United States.

Therein lies a big part of the problem.  Companies believe the tariffs won’t hold and can just wait them out.  Eat the tariffs for a year or so and avoid the cost of moving production.  Trump’s use of tariffs has been far too timid and too narrowly focused on China.  Why only focus on China when, in per capita terms, other countries’ trade surpluses with the U.S. are much larger?

Don DiCostanzo, chief executive officer of Pedego Electric Bikes https://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com in California, said higher labor costs and the absence of a viable supply base have made it “virtually impossible” to assemble bikes in the United States.

Seriously?!?!?  Again, we’re talking about bicycles here.  We build cars, trucks and airplanes in the U.S.  Are we to believe that the simple parts I’ve listed above can’t be sourced in the U.S.?  Most any half-competent machine shop, of which there are thousands in the U.S., could quickly produce those parts.  With a little effort, Pedego could set up shop and make them themselves.  Yes, labor costs would be a little higher, but not that much, and they’d be offset by far lower shipping costs.

In the 1970s, the United States assembled more than 15 million bicycles a year. Now it makes fewer than 500,000, according to industry data presented to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in 2018. By contrast, China made about 95% of the 17 million bikes sold in 2018, U.S. Census data showed.

OK, wait a minute.  This paragraph just refuted the whole premise of this article – that there’s no supplier base and labor costs are too high to build bicycles in the U.S.  Now we learn that somebody is actually building a half million of them in the U.S.  Obviously there actually are sources available for the parts and bikes can be built and sold here at a profit.

Pedego Electric Bikes said it didn’t have any difficulty finding a factory in Vietnam because it was among the first companies to move there. But it faced other challenges.

It had to bring in workers from China to train local staff. Batteries had to be sourced from Japan or Korea and tires from Malaysia. “We had to set up the supply chain,” DiCostanzo said. “That was perhaps the most frustrating part.”

They had to bring workers in from China to train the Vietnamese?  Why didn’t Pedego train them themselves?  It’s likely because Pedego laid off everyone in the company who actually knew how to manufacture bicycles when they moved to China in the first place.  Personally, I’d be ashamed to market bicycles that I didn’t even know how to make.  Nor would I want to buy one from a company who knew so little about their own product.

“It is very difficult to get out of China,” said Alex Logemann at U.S. industry association PeopleForBikes https://peopleforbikes.org.

Baloney.  They had no problem getting into China when it was an undeveloped backwater of rice farmers and little else.  Getting setting up somewhere else, especially in the U.S., should be far easier.

By the way, I own two bicycles myself – both of them Schwinn.  The oldest, a Schwinn Continental that I bought in 1971, is a beautiful bike that was built in the U.S.  While somewhat crude by today’s standards, it was one of the finest bikes you could buy back then and it’s my favorite.  The newer one I received as a gift and it’s a nice bike, but it saddened me when I learned that it was built overseas.

When I first read this article, I was rooting for these companies to figure out a way to set up shop in the U.S.  I think I’ve changed my mind.  Frankly, I hope they all fail, making it that much easier for those companies who are currently building those half million American-made bikes to flourish and grow.  Nearly every bike sold in the U.S. was American-made at one time.  It could be that way again.

 


November Trade Report Best in Two Years

January 11, 2020

https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2020-01/trad1119.pdf

… or three years, depending on how you look at it.  In terms of the overall trade deficit, it was the lowest since October of 2016.  More importantly, the deficit in manufactured goods, at $63.2 billion, was the lowest since September of 2017 – good news, but that’s still a horrible deficit.  (A link to November’s report is attached above.)  Check out this chart of the balance of trade in manufactured goods:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.

The drop in the deficit is due entirely to a decline in imports.  (Exports remain flat.)  Most notably, the deficit with China shrank to $26.4 billion, the lowest reading since March, and down from $37.9 billion during the same month in 2018 – a 30% drop.  This is solid evidence that the tariffs on China are having the desired effect.

In related news, this Reuters article reports that tariffs – primarily the tariffs on China – have cost U.S. companies $46 billion.  That’s actually good news.  It means that they’re “eating” the cost of the tariffs and not passing it on to consumers.  It also means that U.S. companies are evaluating what to do about it.  Should they keep their manufacturing in China in the hopes of waiting out the “trade war” for the tariffs to come down?  Or do they begin implementing plans to shift manufacturing to other locations?  If they choose the latter, do they move operations to some other country and risk facing tariffs there too?  Or do they bite the bullet and move operations back to the U.S.?  If the U.S. is serious about cutting its trade deficit, it has to remain committed to tariffs and implementing them on a much broader scale.  If they do, moving manufacturing back to the U.S.  is the only logical choice for U.S. companies.  Adapt or just keep “eating” those billions of dollars.


“Phase 1” Trade Deal with China a Major Disappointment

December 17, 2019

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-details-factbox/whats-in-the-u-s-china-phase-one-trade-deal-idUSKBN1YH2IL

On Friday, the Trump administration announced that it had reached a “Phase 1” agreement with China that cancels a new round of tariffs that were to have taken effect Sunday, and rolls back some other tariffs, in exchange for … well, nothing really, except some empty promises by the Chinese.  (The above-linked article details what’s included in the deal.)  This is a huge disappointment.  It sends a message to manufacturers that waiting out the tariffs was the right move, as opposed to repatriating their manufacturing operations, and it’s now “business as usual” with China.

Trump clearly got suckered on this one.  China has a long history of reneging on their promises and this will be no different.  Actually, it’s worse than that.  Even if most of these promises are kept, it’ll have no impact on America’s economy.  Why?  Let’s go through the items in the deal as listed in the above-linked article, and see why.

China canceled its retaliatory tariffs due to take effect that same day, including a 25% tariff on U.S.-made autos.

China scarcely imports any U.S. autos anyway, and that’s not going to change regardless of whether or not they’ve placed tariffs on them.  China is awash in auto manufacturing capacity and isn’t about to put their auto workers out of business in order to import cars from the U.S.  So this concession is of zero value to the U.S.

U.S. officials say China agreed to increase purchases of American products and services by at least $200 billion over the next two years, with an expectation that the higher purchases will continue after that period.

Note that it’s “U.S. officials” making this claim.  China hasn’t actually agreed to this and they would never do it.  They have no capacity to absorb such imports.  Mark my word, U.S. exports will scarcely rise at all in the next two years.

China has committed to increase purchases of U.S. agriculture products by $32 billion over two years. That would average an annual total of about $40 billion, compared to a baseline of $24 billion in 2017 before the trade war started. … China agreed to make its best efforts to increase its purchases by another $5 billion annually to get close $50 billion.

They might actually increase their imports of U.S. agriculture products some, but so what?  If they do, Europe will return to buying theirs from South America (where the Chinese have been sourcing theirs), so the increase in Chinese imports will be offset by a loss of other exports.  The impact on American farmers will be zilch.  Regarding that last statement, “China agreed to make its best efforts …”  That’s their way of saying they won’t.

China has committed to reduce non-tariff barriers to agricultural products such as poultry, seafood and feed additives as well as approval of biotechnology products.

For the reasons I just stated, this commitment is meaningless.  Shifting American exports from other markets to the Chinese market accomplishes nothing.

The deal includes stronger Chinese legal protections for patents, trademarks, copyrights, including improved criminal and civil procedures to combat online infringement, pirated and counterfeit goods.

The deal contains commitments by China to follow through on previous pledges to eliminate any pressure for foreign companies to transfer technology to Chinese firms as a condition of market access, licensing or administrative approvals and to eliminate any government advantages for such transfers.

China also agreed to refrain from directly supporting outbound investment aimed at acquiring foreign technology to meet its industrial plans — transactions already restricted by stronger U.S. security reviews.

They’ve agreed to these same things many times in the past.  When it doesn’t happen and an American company complains, China will brush it off as an isolated incident that they’re addressing.

The currency agreement contains pledges by China to refrain from competitive currency devaluations and to not target its exchange rate for a trade advantage — language that China has accepted for years as part of its commitments to the Group of 20 major economies.

So here’s another agreement that the Reuters article correctly identifies as nothing new.  Besides, as I’ve explained many times in other posts, currency values have absolutely nothing to do with trade imbalances.

Under dispute resolution is an arrangement allowing parties to resolve differences over how the deal is implemented through bilateral consultations, starting at the working level and escalating to top-level officials. If these consultations do not resolve disputes, there is a process for imposing tariffs or other penalties.

I’m sure the Chinese love this one.  “Dispute resolution” is something they’ve used for decades to forestall any meaningful retaliation when they violate or fail to live up to their agreements.

U.S. officials said the deal includes improved access to China’s financial services market for U.S. companies, including in banking, insurance, securities and credit rating services.

When China was given “most favored nation” trading status by Clinton in the late ’90s, it was clear that the manufacturing factor sector of our economy was about to be destroyed.  The free trade globalists promised that America would be transformed into a services powerhouse economy.  It never happened.  Such services are nothing more than computer transactions and create few jobs.  The inclusion of a promise of more access to the Chinese economy would mean virtually nothing to the American economy, even if it did happen, which it likely will not.

All of the emphasis in this trade deal is on exports to China, with no emphasis on the reduction of imports.  It’s as though Trump has taken a page from Obama’s playbook when Obama promised in 2010 to re-balance trade by doubling exports in five years.  How did that work out?  Five years later, exports of manufactured goods were up by only 9% – not even keeping pace with inflation, which means that exports actually fell.  By the time Obama left office, exports were even lower.  Obama’s failure to do anything meaningful to re-balance trade during his two-term tenure was a major factor in Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.

So that’s it.  Trump’s trade agenda has been not just stalled, but rolled back to some degree, for nothing more than promises that won’t be kept.  The emphasis on boosting farm exports is a blatant pandering to Trump’s electoral base.  It seems as though, with this trade deal, Trump believes that the U.S. will be better off if it returns to being an agrarian society.  If we were a country of 100 million people, like in the late 19th century, that might be true.  With a population of 330 million people, we can’t have a viable economy without an industrial base.  The de-industrialization of America has got to stop.  When dealing with a badly overpopulated nation like China, it’s impossible to export your way out of a trade deficit.  They have no capacity to boost their imports because their per capita consumption, emaciated by overcrowding, prohibits them from even absorbing their own domestic industrial capacity.

So what would a better deal look like?  No deal at all.  No overpopulated nation like China will ever deal away the manufacturing for export that is so vital to their economy, and wouldn’t comply with any deal that threatened it.  The only way to restore a balance of trade with China is to levy heavy tariffs to make their products noncompetitive with American-made goods.  If it ultimately leads to a cessation of trade with China altogether, the American economy would enjoy a $450 billion/year boost.  The American economy would actually be far better off if China fell off the map.

The Trump administration needs to stop seeing tariffs as negotiating leverage, and start seeing them as the only way to maintain a balance of trade.  Trump is frittering away his opportunity to truly “Make America Great Again,” something he can’t legitimately claim has happened until America is restored to the industrial powerhouse that it once was.

 

 

 


WTO Gutted by Trump Administration

December 11, 2019

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-wto/u-s-trade-offensive-takes-out-wto-as-global-arbiter-idUSKBN1YE0YE

Here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about when I say that the media slants its coverage of Trump, ignoring accomplishments and anything that puts the Trump administration in a positive light.  At the same time, it’s also an example of my complaint that Trump isn’t an effective communicator.

The above-linked article reports on one of the most significant milestones of the Trump administration.  As of yesterday, the World Trade Organization, or “WTO,” has been effectively gutted by the Trump administration’s blocking of appointments to its “Appellate Body,” rendering it unable to rule on trade disputes.

It’s impossible to overstate the significance of this milestone.  The WTO was founded in 1995, but its roots go back much further, to the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (or “GATT”) in 1947.  Its mission has been to advance the cause of undeveloped and underdeveloped countries through the transfer of industry and wealth from the United States.  As a result, the U.S. has run a trade deficit every year since 1976, a deficit that set a new record in 2018, reached a cumulative total of over $16 trillion and is responsible for 80% of our national debt.  It has shifted millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs overseas and left many millions of Americans unable to afford health care or to save for retirement.  Decades of mush-headed presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, have stood idly by while “economists,” bought-and-paid-for by global corporations, assured them that such “free trade” was in our best interest.

Yesterday should have been celebrated like the end of a major war.  Yet there was little mention of it in the media and no mention of it by Trump, who should be credited with one of the biggest achievements by an American president in decades.  I was lucky to stumble across this article on Reuters where, only an hour later, it was gone from the their web site and I had to do a search to resurrect it.

No country should ever hand over its economy to any global organization that is dedicated to managing it in favor of other countries to its own detriment, but that’s exactly what the U.S. did.  As of yesterday, Trump has effectively put an end to it.


Tariffs Working. Trade Deficit and Unemployment Down in November.

December 7, 2019

As announced by the Commerce Department, the trade deficit fell again in October to $47.2 billion, the lowest since March of 2018.  And the all-important deficit in manufactured goods fell to $66.9 billion, the lowest level since June of 2018, and nearly $10 billion less than the record set one year ago.  Most notably, thanks to the tariffs enacted on Chinese imports, the deficit with that country fell to $31.3 billion.  Year-to-date, the deficit with China is $294.5 billion, down by over $50 billion from the same time last year.  This is proof positive that the tariffs enacted by the Trump administration are working.

What about the effect on America’s farmers?  Contrary to reports about how much they’ve been hurt by retaliation by the Chinese, overall exports of foods, feeds and beverages are actually up by $59 million year-to-date.  And soybean exports are up dramatically by $3.2 billion to $20.3 billion year-to-date.  See for yourself on page 20 of this report from the Commerce Department: https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2019-12/trad1019_2.pdf.   How can this be, when the media is constantly reporting that farmers are angry over lost exports due to Trump’s tariffs?  As in all occupations, some farmers are Republicans and some are Democrats.  Some are doing well, some not so well.  If you cherry-pick which farmers you want to listen to, you can build a narrative that makes it sound like the farming industry is being hurt by the tariffs.  The real data paints an entirely different picture.

Before I leave the subject of the trade report, it’s worth noting here that, year-to-date, imports of “automotive vehicles, parts and engines” stands at $316.7 billion (page 23 of the report), vs. exports of only $136 billion (page 21) – a deficit of nearly $180 billion for that one category of products alone.  The Trump administration has been threatening to levy a 25% tariff on all auto imports.  I can’t understand what in the world he’s waiting for!  Such a move would rapidly shift demand toward domestic makes in a big way.  The tariffs should be applied to Mexico as well.  If President Trump wants to get the new USMCA agreement with Mexico and Canada passed by Congress, who’s been sitting on it for over a year now, just tell them that the tariffs on Mexican imports will stay in place until USMCA is passed, and then watch how fast Congress moves!

The news on unemployment was just as good.  The economy added 266,000 jobs in November, and September and October were revised upward by 41,000 combined.  Here’s the report:  https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.  Unemployment fell to 3.5%.  And per capita employment held at 48%, it’s highest level in almost ten years.  Here’s a chart:  Per Capita Employment.

This is all great news and none of it would be happening without the U-turn on trade policy that the Trump administration made when it started levying tariffs.  We need more tariffs, applied to more countries that are running big surpluses with the U.S., until a balance of trade is restored.


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.