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

California Admits Failure in its Carbon Reduction Efforts

February 5, 2019

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-california-insight/a-climate-problem-even-california-cant-fix-tailpipe-pollution-idUSKCN1PQ4MJ

Once in a while I divert my focus from the economic impact of population growth to highlight other impacts, like environmental.  This is one of those times, as the report in the above-linked article is so significant that I can’t let it pass without comment.  The state of California is admitting that its decades-long drive to reduce auto exhaust emissions is a complete failure.

For three decades, California has led the fight to control tailpipe pollution, with countless policies promoting cleaner gasoline, carpooling, public transportation and its signature strategy – the electric vehicle.  Californians now buy more than half of all EVs sold in the United States, and the state’s auto-pollution policies have provided a model being adopted around the world.

Indeed, California’s focus on reducing carbon emissions has been a model for the rest of the world.  In fact, such carbon reduction is the model upon which the Paris Climate Accord, whose stated goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level at which sustainable development can continue, is based.  The result?

Tailpipe pollution here is going up, not down, despite billions of dollars spent by one of the most environmentally progressive governments on earth.

“The strategies that we’ve used up until now just haven’t been effective,” Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, told Reuters.

How is this possible – that such measures are having no effect?  The answer is quite simple, and it’s a point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly.  The planet doesn’t give a damn how much you reduce your carbon emissions.  All it cares about is the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Population growth is negating any gains in per capita carbon emissions.  What difference does it make if everyone reduces their personal emissions by 50%, let’s say, if the population doubles?  Not one damn bit.

That failure has less to do with energy or environmental policies and more with decades-old urban planning decisions that made California – and especially Los Angeles – a haven for sprawling development of single-family homes and long commutes, according to state officials.

Note the word “development.”  It’s the same word you find in the stated mission of the Paris Climate Accord – sustainable “development.”  It’s a code word for population growth.  “Sprawling development” doesn’t happen without it.  “Sustainable development” doesn’t happen without it.  In fact, “sustainable development” has been the biggest cause of climate change and those who continue to promote it are scamming you into supporting their real agenda – profit growth for global corporations.

The fact is that there is no solution to climate change or any of the other myriad negative consequences of population growth that doesn’t BEGIN with a focus on stablizing the human population.  That’s not to say that we shoudn’t also focus on minimizing our emissions of all kinds – not just greenhouse gases but gaseous, liquid and solid emissions of all kinds.  Nor is “sustainable development” a solution to poverty.  It’s actually making it worse, with over-crowding driving down per capita consumption and, with it, employment.

Of course, there’s no overt mention of “population growth” in this article – just “sprawling development.”  So don’t be surprised if the scam continues, but with a new, additional focus on trying to drive people together into tiny apartments in high-rise housing.  Yeah, that’ll work.  That’s a future we can all really look forward to.

 

 


MAGA: Is Trump Becoming a Liability?

January 28, 2019

In the wake of the government shutdown fiasco, you have to begin to wonder whether Trump is becoming a liability to the “Make America Great Again” movement.

It isn’t so much the fact that he reopened the government.  It’s the way he did it.  He caved in.  He totally capitulated to Democrats’ insistence on maintaining an open border, getting absolutely nothing in return.  What should he have done?  First of all, he should have followed through with his threat of declaring a national emergency.  Secondly, he should have withdrawn America from NAFTA and immediately put in place tariffs on all manufactured goods from Mexico, effectively making Mexico pay for the wall like he promised.   Finally, he should have immediately begun deporting the “deferred action” illegal aliens that he offered to protect.

The “deal” to reopen the government for three weeks, supposedly for the purpose of giving Trump and congress time to negotiate a deal on border security, is a farce.  Trump has given up all leverage that he had on the border wall issue and Democrats have made it crystal clear that they’ll never support a dime for securing the border in the only way that it can be secured – by building a barrier.  Either there’ll be an impasse again, or Trump will cave in a 2nd time and try to sell something less than a barrier – maybe more funding for border patrol agents and technology – as a win.

The problem goes far beyond the border wall issue to the half-hearted, inconsistent implementation of virtually every element of his “Make America Great Again” (or “MAGA”) program, a program consisting of three key elements:  a re-balancing of trade to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.; putting an end to rampant, out-of-control immigration – both legal and illegal; and putting an end to the rest of the world behaving like a spoiled, entitled teenager treating the U.S. like a doting parent, providing everything it asks for and getting nothing but scorn in return.

We were promised a wall to virtually put an end to illegal immigration across our southern border, to be paid for by Mexico.  We were promised a prompt withdrawal from NAFTA, and tariffs on products from Mexico, which would have made fulfilling the border wall promise a snap.  We were promised tariffs on Chinese imports and on auto imports.

Soon after the inauguration, Trump invited Red China’s communist dictator to dinner at Mar A Lago and was quickly seduced into holding off on tariffs on China.  Then he caved in to pressure not to withdraw from NAFTA and instead got sucked into a ridiculously drawn out negotiation of a new agreement with Mexico and Canada that may or may not be any improvement at all, and that Congress seems in no hurry to take up.  Goodbye to any chance of getting Mexico to pay for the wall.  He did implement a small ten percent tariff on half of Chinese imports after it became clear that Chairman Xi’s promises were nothing more than a ploy, but caved in on further implementation once the global corporations began their pissing and moaning.  Now we’re sucked into the same kind of trade negotiations that the rest of the world has used for decades to stall America’s efforts to stand up for itself.

Then there’s North Korea.  Give Trump credit for using the toughest sanctions ever to forced them to agree to denuclearization, but Kim’s promises have proven hollow and North Korea seems to be off the hook once again.

I don’t blame Trump alone for all of this.  Everyone around him has been against him from the start – the Democrats who despise him and would never agree to anything he wanted, the media, global corporations, global organizations, his own staff and even members of his own family (globalists like Kushner and Ivanka) who have stonewalled his programs.

All of the backlash from the MAGA initiatives was to be expected.  I predicted as much in Five Short Blasts – a period of inflation caused by significant tariff-induced price increases, but eventually followed by explosive economic growth as manufacturing in America returned.  Trump needed to go all in with his program quickly, enduring withering criticism for a couple of years or so before having the last laugh when GDP began to explode as factories were rebuilt and as the manufacturing sector of the economy exploded.  It would have taken a lot of guts to be almost universally despised in the short term in order to have history remember him as an American hero in the long term.

However, I see a real danger in what’s happening here.  Trump’s incomplete implementation of these policies will yield only the pain without achieving the benefits that would eventually come, and will be deemed complete failures.  They’ll be forever labeled as “Trumpian” policies that no one will ever dare to attempt again.  America will be forever doomed to massive trade deficits and budget deficits, and will eventually collapse under the weight of gross overpopulation and a national debt that the rest of the world can no longer sustain.

It’s not too late for Trump, but it’s getting pretty darn close.  He needs to immediately begin ignoring all of globalist noise and whining and go all in with what he knows needs to be done.  Declare an emergency.  Build the wall.  Withdraw from NAFTA and slap tariffs on Mexico, and tell congress that if they don’t like it, then they can pass the new agreement he negotiated.  Slap tariffs on all Chinese exports and raise them to 25% or higher.  Slap 25% tariffs on all auto imports.  Tell the rest of the world that we’re willing to buy from them only as much as they buy from us.  Sure, the globalist outcry will be almost unbearable, but so what?  Continue down the path you’re on and history will remember you as a complete failure.  So what is there to lose?


An Example of Why Tariffs Can’t be Piecemeal

January 17, 2019

https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/top-news/201901170104RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_KCN1PB0CB-OUSBS_1

The above-linked article is a good example of why tariffs can’t be applied piecemeal to only specific products.  A Michigan auto parts supplier is shifting the manufacturing of some components from Michigan to Israel to skirt the tariffs on steel.  Israel gets steel tariff-free and the parts they manufacture no longer count as “steel,” so they can export them to the U.S. free of tariffs.

I give Trump a lot of credit for implementing tariffs and hope he goes much further but, in order to avoid situations such as the one reported on in this article, tariffs must be targeted at nations – densely populated nations – not products, and must cover every product from such nations – not just specific products.

If Trump had applied the tariff structure I recommended in Five Short Blasts, a structure indexed to population density, the RoMan manufacturing company would never dream of outsourcing components to Israel, since all imports from Israel would be subject to a 40% tariff.  It’s worth noting here that, in 2017, our third worst trade deficit in per capita terms was with Israel, one of the most badly over-populated nations on earth – three times as densely populated as China.  In per capita terms, our trade deficit with Israel is four times worse than our deficit with China.

The Trump administration sees tariffs as a tool to force concessions from nations that continue to maintain trade barriers (like tariffs) against American products.  It believes that if it can get Europe, for example, to drop its 10% tariff on American cars, then American manufacturers will begin exporting a lot more cars to Europe.  But they won’t, at least not nearly in the quantity needed to offset the number of cars imported from Europe.  The problem isn’t the tariff, it’s the inability of Europeans to consume even their own domestic capacity because their dense population (nearly equal to China’s population density) makes car ownership impractical.

Tariffs aren’t negotiating tactics.  They’re absolutely imperative to maintain a balance of trade with densely populated nations.

 


It IS a crisis. Build the wall.

January 9, 2019

For those not familiar with this blog, let me begin by stating that I’m an independent who votes issues – two issues in particular:  trade policy and immigration.  These two issues dwarf all others in importance because of the role of population growth – the United States’ own population growth and the imported effects through trade with grossly overpopulated nations – in driving up unemployment and poverty.  Obama promised to address the trade deficit and I voted for him.  He reneged on that promise and I did not vote for him the 2nd time around.  Trump promised to address both the trade deficit and immigration, so I voted for him.  Trump’s doing a good job on both fronts – at least the best he can, given the push-back by the globalists in the media, in Congress and even among his own staff.

But a good communicator he isn’t.  I thought he missed some key points in his address last night.  So I’ll try to fill in the gaps.  First of all, it’s just common sense for any nation to build a physical barrier along any border that’s under constant assault, as our southern border has been for many decades.  The cost – a few billion dollars – is minuscule – chump change compared to the annual federal budget.  The federal government is constantly looking for new ways to inject stimulus into the economy to offset the economic drain caused by the massive trade deficit.  Virtually every penny spent on building a wall would create jobs, just as it does in infrastructure projects.

Claims by the Democrats that a physical barrier isn’t an effective tool against illegal immigration are, at face value, absolutely preposterous.  If a physical barrier isn’t effective, then why do so many senators and congressmen live in gated communities, as Trump pointed out?  Why do prisons have walls?  Why are airports fenced?  For heaven’s sake, even landfills have fences around them!

In the lead-in stories on the major networks that covered Trump’s address, they reported on the decline in border apprehensions.  From the year 2000 to 2018, border apprehensions have declined from 1.6 million per year to 400,000 last year.  Is that proof that a crisis doesn’t exist?  No.  What happened after those 1.6 million apprehensions in 2000?  Virtually all of those illegal immigrants, once processed, were released into the general population.  They, and the problems they brought with them, were here to stay.  Now, however, Trump has taken a zero tolerance approach to the problem, trying to detain all until either their requests for asylum can be validated or they can be deported.  The detention facilities are bursting at the seams.  Children are separated from their families.  A couple have died from the flu.  (No mention of the hundreds of American kids who die from the flu every year.)

There’s the crisis.  Even at the reduced levels of apprehension, the sheer numbers dwarf our ability to deal with them quickly and humanely.  Just because a crisis has been ignored for decades doesn’t make it any less a crisis.  Just because what needed to be done decades ago was never done doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it now.  The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  Expecting the illegal immigration problem to just magically go away without putting up a barrier is insane.

The onslaught of migrants fleeing wars in the Middle East and famine and poverty in northern Africa for Europe has been universally described as a humanitarian crisis.  Since the beginning of that crisis a few years ago, Europe has taken in about 800,000 migrants and is struggling mightily to cope with the results.  The United States, with approximately the same population and geographical area as Europe, has been invaded by an even greater number of illegal immigrants yearly, year in and year out, decade after decade.  And yet, Democrats (along with plenty of Republicans) deny that a crisis exists.  Given their “druthers,” many Democrats would prefer to ignore the problem altogether and leave the border wide open.  Hillary Clinton is a self-proclaimed open border advocate.

Enough is enough.  If Democrats can’t stomach the thought of admitting that Trump is right on this issue and pony up the chump change needed to build the wall and re-open the government, then Trump should proceed without them.  If the Democrats didn’t want Trump to declare a crisis, then they shouldn’t have described the conditions at the detention facilities as a crisis.  Declare an emergency and immediately start building the wall.  Of course there’ll be a legal challenge.  So what?  The wall can be finished by the time that winds its way through the courts.

If that fails, here’s an idea:  put a road on top of the wall and bury the funding in a transportation bill!


Why is hate on the rise?

October 31, 2018

In the wake of the mail bombs sent to Democratic critics of Trump and the deadly mass shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh, many are raising alarm about what seems to be a dramatic increase in hate crimes and speech.  I was thinking about this and these lyrics came to mind:

“… The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch,
And I don’t like anybody very much.

… They’re rioting in Africa.
There’s strife in Iran.
What nature doesn’t do to us
will be done by our fellow man.”

Those lyrics are taken from a song titled “Merry Minuet,” released by the Kingston Trio in 1959.  Six decades have passed since then.  In spite of the strides we’ve made in being more tolerant of people who are different from us in terms of race, creed and sexual orientation, it does seem as though hate is more prevalent than ever before.  Maybe it is; maybe it isn’t.

The millenial generation now blames Trump and like-minded boomers for the rise in hate.  In 1959, the boomers were blaming their parents.  Hate and the primeval instincts that fuel it, like fear, distrust, envy, greed, and our territorial instincts, have always been with us.  Those instincts are critical to our survival.  One who wanders down a dark alley, oblivious to potential danger, ends up dead.  One who does so with an appropriate degree of fear and distrust is more likely to survive.

When driven to irrational extremes, however -as they can be when fed by false information, those instincts may cause us to unjustifiably hate others.  I and my fellow Christians believe that Christ came into this world to teach us to rein in our demons, to love our neighbor and to forgive those who wrong us.  Often, it’s not easy.  I see a couple of factors, beyond the political, that are making it much harder.

Number one is “social” media.  Not until the past few years have those beset with irrational fears and hatred had such a place to turn to for reinforcement, where their fears and suspicions could be stoked by gross propaganda designed to pull them in and exploit them.  There’s another factor, however, that few recognize – that high population densities are breeding grounds for hatred.  You can see it everywhere you look.  It’s not hard to understand.  Those who live in close quarters are more easily irritated by those around them.  Throw in obvious differences like race and creed and you have an explosive mixture.  “Good fences make good neighbors,” as the saying goes.  The point is that we can all more easily coexist when we have some separation.

I like to use what I call the “monkeys in a cage” effect as an analogy.  Build an enormous, beautiful cage – perhaps acres in size – with flowing streams and trees full of fruit and nuts.  Now put a monkey in the cage.  Will he be happy?  No, he’ll be lonely.  Put in another monkey.  Are they happy?  They’re happier, but still long for more companionship, being very social animals.  So put in some more.  And then more.  At some point, some monkeys will be driven out of the group, where they’ll move to the opposite side of the cage and form their own group.  Now put in more monkeys, and more and more.  At some point, the monkeys will turn on each other and you’ll return to the cage in the morning to find many of them dead, casualties of an enormous fight that broke out overnight.

Any child whoever had an aquarium or terrarium understands that their bowl  or cage will only support just so many fish or animals, in spite of their best efforts to keep them fed.  And so it is with us.  Our country and our planet is twice as densely populated as it was fifty years ago, and is many times more densely populated that it was just a century ago.  While mankind may be clever enough to overcome many obstacles to never-ending population growth, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that there are also many factors that are escalating beyond our ability to control them.  Rising hatred, fed by worsening over-crowding is one that shouldn’t be ignored.

 


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.