Biden Tackles Minor Corporate Abuses While Ignoring the Biggest and Most Obvious

July 11, 2021

As reported in this Reuters article, Biden has signed an executive order that tackles many corporate abuses in an effort to help American consumers. Good for him. Many of these actions have been long overdue. But he has completely ignored the one “corporate abuse” that dwarfs all others in terms of its impact on American workers. I’m talking about the trade deficit and the practice of off-shoring millions of manufacturing jobs.

To his credit, while ignoring the abuses that Biden addressed with this executive order, Trump is the only president since World War II who took the trade deficit seriously and took concrete steps to address it.

You may wonder why I focus so much attention on the trade deficit since the purpose of my book, Five Short Blasts, and the purpose of this blog, is to raise awareness of the economic consequences of overpopulation – namely, that falling per capita consumption as over-crowding worsens must inevitably drive up unemployment and poverty. And poverty kills. Ultimately, if nothing else gets us first, it will prove to be mankind’s undoing.

It’s really not that hard to understand once you understand that increasing over-crowding as the population continues to grow inevitably drives down per capita consumption and, along with it, the need for labor. People living in crowded conditions live in ever-smaller dwellings. They own little furniture and appliances because there’s no room for them. They own less clothing because of a lack of closet space. They don’t have yards and gardens, so they don’t need tools to maintain them. They don’t own cars because roads are choked with traffic and there’s no place to park. So they don’t have garages. They don’t participate in sports because there’s nowhere left to play them. They don’t engage in recreational boating because launch and dock space is all taken.

You get the idea. But what does this have to do with trade? Consider a country with a reasonable population density. Let’s say there’s 100 million people in this country. Their lifestyle resembles that of the U.S. Now suppose that they engage in free trade with another nation that is far smaller – say one tenth the size – but also has 100 million people. It’s ten times as crowded and people live in conditions like those described in the previous paragraph. For that reason, their consumption is only half that of the first country.

Through free trade, these two countries, though each is still a sovereign state with borders, behave economically as one country. The work of manufacturing the products that their combined population needs is spread evenly across the work force, but the consumption of those products isn’t. Consumption in the 2nd country remains low because of their over-crowding. The end result is that the first country has lost 25% of their manufacturing jobs and has lost even more in terms of market share. In essence, the first country has been forced to pay the price for the 2nd country’s overpopulation.

By trading freely with the 2nd country, the first country has immediately taken on the economic traits of a country twice as populated – something it would have taken decades to happen through the course of normal population growth. Worsening unemployment and poverty are the inescapable consequences of free trade with overpopulated nations. This is why my concern for the economic consequences of overpopulation has driven me to put such heavy emphasis on trade.

With all of that as a backdrop, what has Biden done to address our massive trade deficit – now an annual one trillion dollars in trade in manufactured goods? Absolutely nothing. Oh, he’s paid some lip service to wanting to help American workers and has encouraged us to “buy American.” But he’s done nothing about our trade policy and hasn’t spoken a word about our trade deficit.

As reported this past week by the Commerce Department, our trade deficit in May continued to hover at a near-record level of $71.2 billion, the 2nd worst reading ever since setting a record of $75 billion in March. In fact, in his first four full months in office for which trade data is available – February through May of this year – Biden owns the four worst monthly trade deficits ever recorded.

Our largest trade deficit is with China. Thanks to Trump’s enactment of 25% tariffs on half of all Chinese imports, however, that deficit isn’t nearly what it once was. Our annual deficit with China peaked at $418 billion in 2018. Thanks to Trump’s tariffs, that fell to $344 billion in 2019, and fell again in 2020 to $310 billion. So far this year, it’s on track to remain at that level.

Trump left Biden the perfect tool to build on that progress. In January, 2020, he got China to sign the “Phase 1” trade deal which held at bay his threat to extend his tariffs to all Chinese imports in exchange for China’s agreement to dramatically increase their imports of American goods. What’s happened? China is failing miserably in its commitments and, not only has Biden done nothing to enforce the agreement, he hasn’t even acknowledged that the Phase 1 trade deal even exists. So far, through May, China is 39% behind its commitment on manufactured products, 43% short of its goal for agricultural products, and is a whopping 78% short of it goal for energy products. They’re barely exceeding their imports in 2017 which formed the baseline for the agreement.

So far, the Biden administration makes a good show of supporting American workers but, on this most critical issue – the one that would help us the most – all we hear from the White Houe is …….. the sound of crickets.


The Biggest Covid Lesson Not Learned

June 15, 2021

The subject of the environment is a bit off-topic for me, since the focus of this blog is to warn of the economic consequences of overpopulation, leaving others to focus on the environment. But with all of the Biden administration’s renewed focus on climate change, I just can’t let this pass.

Trump called climate change a “hoax.” Is it? I don’t think so. The science is clear that certain gases like carbon dioxide and methane, just to name a couple, have a greenhouse effect, trapping heat below the atmosphere. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has soared over the last decades far above its historical norms. And temperatures seem to be rising. But is there a cause and effect relationship between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures? I’m not quite so sure.

Never mentioned is the heat-island effect of larger and more densely-populated cities. The temperature in cities is always at least a couple of degrees higher than in the surrounding suburban and rural areas as cool, moist ground is replaced by hot asphalt and concrete. As our population grows, so too does the heat-island effect in big cities. Smaller cities grow into bigger cities. Small towns grow into cities, and new towns appear in once-rural areas. Heat-islands are getting bigger and new ones are appearing everywhere. How do you quantify how much of the higher temperature readings are due to the heat-island effect vs. greenhouse gases? You can’t. Nor does it matter. The effect is the same. The planet is getting hotter thanks to our growing population.

Still, I find it logical to conclude that rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are playing a part in rising temperatures. So what’s the solution? To arrive at a solution, you have to first understand the real cause. Emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 is the result of human activity. The total volume of these emissions is the product of the number of humans multiplied by the average per capita emissions from their activity. Total greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by addressing either the average per capita emissions or by reducing the number of humans, or through a combination of both approaches. If climate change caused by greenhouse gases is an existential threat to our planet as environmentalists, political leaders and business leaders claim, then the latter approach – one that addresses both factors in the equation – the number of humans and the average emissions that they produce – is absolutely critical.

At this point, let’s take a step back and digress because it’s essential, especially for younger readers who didn’t live through it, to understand some history of the environmental movement. In the ’60s and ’70s, people were fed up with pollution. Our lakes and rivers and sky were absolutely filthy. The landscape was strewn with litter along the highways and with unregulated dumps and landfills and junkyards. The environmental movement was born.

Soon, however, perhaps because of the extent of the problem and the opposition by industry to do anything about it, environmentalists became quite radical. Much of their focus turned toward overpopulation to the point where environmentalists were perceived as “anti-human,” looking upon all humans with scorn. Industry and politicians alike hated the focus on overpopulation because economic models are based upon and depend upon growth. Industry’s profit growth goals depended on population growth. People, too, hated being told that their very existence was the problem and began to hate the environmentalists. The environmental movement was in peril. At the same time, people also began to hate industry for its opposition to cleaning up the horrible mess they had created.

In the interest of survival, environmentalists, industry and politicians came together and, in an unholy alliance, came to a mutual understanding. Industry agreed to embrace the environmental movement and pursue technologies that would clean up the environment and, in return, environmentalists agreed to never again focus on the role of overpopulation. The concept of “sustainable development” was born. All sides agreed that we can be clever enough to continue growth and development while, at the same time, protecting the environment from harm. All sides embraced this new concept of “sustainable development.” Never mind that little voice inside your head telling you that “sustainable development” in a finite world is an oxymoron and is nothing more than BS. If and when it proved to be exactly that – a bunch of BS – it would be far enough down the road that it would be some later generation’s problem to deal with. Today, you are that generation.

OK, back to climate change and how to approach it. If climate change is, in fact, an existential threat to our planet, then any approach that doesn’t include some focus on stabilizing our population – worse yet, leads us to believe that, through changes in technology we can eliminate the problem while still growing our population – is clearly doomed to failure. It is, in fact, a hoax, just as Trump proclaimed.

Take the Paris Climate Accord, for instance. If you read it’s mission, you’ll find that it’s goal is not to stop climate change but to reduce it to a manageable level – a level at which “sustainable development” can continue. There you have it. “Sustainable development” has been practiced now for at least fifty years and all of our environmental problems – especially climate change – are the end results. Does the Paris Climate Accord want to end it? No. It’s main goal is to keep “sustainable development” going. And what is required of the U.S. as a member of this accord? The U.S. is required to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the effort. And what is that money ear-marked for? Green energy projects? No. In fact, it’s earmarked for exactly the opposite. It would be spent to develop underdeveloped countries like India using fossil fuel technology, with the rationalization that they must first be developed cheaply so that they can then afford to make the switch-over to green energy technology. Don’t believe me? I don’t blame you, but it’s true. Read the Paris Climate Accord for yourself.

Along comes the recent G7 meeting where Biden agreed to donate another $100 billion to the cause. To advance green technology? No, it’s earmarked to help poor countries cope with the effect of climate change.

Then there’s the promise that green energy will create jobs right here in the U.S. But, at every opportunity to demonstrate that that’s true, what happens? Wind turbines are imported from Denmark. Solar panels are imported from China. The new electric Ford Mustang is built in Mexico. The Chevy Bolt EV is primarily made in South Korea.

Frankly, the entire environmental movement has devolved into a hoax, one that is designed to create the illusion that our problems are under control so that unbridled population growth – fueling sales and profit and tax base growth – can continue without opposition.

Back to the title of this post. Despite all the death and hardship it has caused, the Covid pandemic has provided us with one benefit. It gave us an opportunity to see what would happen if human activity was dramatically curtailed. Some amazing things happened. The air quickly cleared. The people of Beijing, China actually saw blue sky – probably many for the first time in their lives. The sky turned bluer everywhere and plants and trees thrived in a way that hadn’t been seen in at least half a century. Greenhouse gas emissions were slashed far more than any scientists thought could possibly be achieved through green energy projects. The roads were cleared of traffic. People took to the outdoors once again – walking and biking. And people began leaving their high-rise apartments in big cities in droves, realizing for the first time just how stifling and risky living in densely-populated conditions can be. The work force was pared down to essential workers and, with federal assistance, we all got along fine. We didn’t really need to eat out so much, or need many of the trappings of modern living that make life such a rat race.

Those of us who have been around a while – long enough to remember a time when our population was half of what it is today – have seen it all before. It brought back a lot of fond memories of what life was like in those more simple, uncrowded times. Frankly – and I’ve heard others make the same observation – it was a breath of fresh air. It was a glimpse of what is possible in a less crowded world.

That lesson is clearly lost, however. No one – not environmentalists, economists, politicians or industrial leaders have dared to utter a peep to suggest a new approach – one guaranteed to resolve climate change with far less effort and expense – an approach that includes steps to stabilize our population. In fact, Biden has thrown the immigration doors wide open in an effort to grow our population even faster. China, in an effort to avoid any decline in its enormously bloated population, is encouraging families to have more children. So is Japan. None of them really care about climate change or any of the other overpopulation-induced maladies that threaten the planet. All they care about is putting on a show to fool you into thinking that there’s actually a plan.

I have warned for a long time that unbridled population growth, through declining per capita consumption and worsening unemployment, will push us into poverty and be our undoing. If we don’t learn to moderate our population, mother nature will do it for us and it won’t be pretty. We’ve seen Covid hit poorer, overpopuated countries the hardest and there take the biggest toll. As grim as the Covid toll has been, something else will come along and it’ll be much worse. What will it take before we finally learn this lesson? I dread to find out.


United States the “World’s Breadbasket” No More

March 11, 2021

There was a time when the United States was known as the “World’s Breadbasket.” It’s “amber waves of grain” and “fruited plains” – noted in the first verse of “America the Beautiful” – supplied food wherever it was needed anywhere in the world. Even the Soviet Union turned to the U.S. for grain when its own harvests fell short of its needs.

Now, it seems that the “… pilgrim feet, whose stern, impassioned stress a thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness” – from the 2nd verse of the same song, written originally in 1893 when the U.S. population was 65 million people – have grown the “alabaster cities” of the fourth verse to the point where we are the “World’s Breadbasket” no more. With a population of five times larger than when that song was written, we can’t even feed our own people any more.

At least that’s what our trade data tells us. Look at this chart. The category of foods, feeds and beverages – agricultural products – was once a bright spot in America’s ever-darkening trade picture. We always had a surplus for export to feed the world’s hungry, but no more. Our balance of trade in agriculture products has steadily eroded to the point where we’ve now run a deficit for the fourth year in a row. It improved a little in 2020 but, as you can see, it’s on a downward trajectory.

I have always steered clear of the subject of overpopulation in terms of resource shortages. Thomas Malthus hypothesized in 1798 that the world’s population would outstrip its ability to produce food. As decades wore on and the food supply grew even faster than the population, the other sciences mocked economists and proclaimed that mankind is clever enough to overcome all obstacles to further population growth. That has certainly proven true so far and may be true to a point, but any thinking person knows that there will eventually come a tipping point. In fact, it was only by ignoring the possibility of resource shortages and by pondering what else might happen as the population continues to grow that I was able to discover the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption – and its ramifications for worsening unemployment and poverty.

Nevertheless, I can’t help taking note of this trade data for agricultural products. Mind you, I’m no expert in the subject. One could argue that there are many other factors involved. Federal agriculture policy such as price supports, policies that encourage farmers to allow fields to lie fallow, etc. may all be playing a part here. Whether or not that explains the deficit in agriculture, I can’t say.

However, the data doesn’t lie. For the past four years, America is growing increasingly dependent on imports to feed its ever-growing population. That should be cause for concern for everyone. It’s bad enough that America is dependent on imports for virtually all things manufactured. That makes us weak and vulnerable. Being dependent on others for our food supply is far worse. Having enough to eat is a matter of total food production divided by the total population. Both factors need to be considered if we’re going to rectify this situation. It isn’t enough to simply consider how to boost production. (Do we really want more genetically-modified crops, more pesticides in our produce and more hormones in our meat?) It’s time to consider whether the number of “pilgrim feet” and whether the size of our “alabaster cities” has begun to overwhelm our “fruited plains.”

Immigrants, take note. Bring some grain and fruit with you, because we’re all out.


Time to Leave the World Trade Organization

September 16, 2020

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-wto/wto-finds-washington-broke-trade-rules-by-putting-tariffs-on-china-ruling-angers-u-s-idUSKBN2662FG

As reported in the above-linked article, the World Trade Organization has announced its finding that the U.S. broke its rules when it imposed tariffs on Chinese imports two years ago.

The timing of this announcement is curious.  Of course the U.S. broke the rules.  Everyone knew it at the time.  Trump didn’t care.  It was the only way to make any progress on halting the explosion in the trade deficit with China.  So why wait until now?  Is it because Trump faces re-election in less than two months, running against a candidate who played a big role in the advancement of the globalism that the WTO enforces?

The WTO is the enforcer of the ill-conceived trade scheme hatched in the wake of World War II to bring the world together by employing the unproven concept of “free” trade.  Decades later, the results are in and “free” trade is now a proven failure.  Instead of lifting all economies of the world and bringing the world together through an inter-dependency, the WTO has destabilized the world by establishing a host-parasite relationship between reasonably-populated nations, like the U.S., and the others – like China, so badly overpopulated that they are totally dependent on manufacturing for export and feeding off of America’s market.  The WTO is directly responsible for building up a totalitarian communist regime bent on dominating the rest of the world.

It’s time to put an end to this.  Trump can do it by simply withdrawing from the WTO, a move that would quickly lead to its collapse.  Let’s return to truly free trade, where every nation is free to set its own rules in its own best self-interest.


Trump’s Efforts on Trade a Spectacular Failure

September 9, 2020

I can’t tell you how disheartening it was to sift through the latest trade data, for the month of July, released by the Commerce Department late last week.  There’s just no getting around the fact that the administration’s efforts to cut the trade deficit and bring manufacturing back to the U.S. have failed.  “Failure” would be the word to describe results that haven’t shown any improvement.  But America’s trade picture has deteriorated so badly that the scope of the failure can only be described as “spectacular.”

In his inauguration address, Trump observed:

…  rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation …

Earlier in the address, regarding situations like that noted above, he proclaimed:

… That all changes – starting right here, and right now …

The July trade data comes 3-1/2 years into his administration – plenty of time to implement changes and to see the effects.  It’s hard to find any silver lining.  Consider:

  1. The trade deficit in manufactured goods in July soared to $80.4 billion, a new record that completely blows away the record set under the Obama administration ($63.3 billion in March, 2015).  Check out this chart:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.
  2. During the 2016 campaign, Trump vowed to quickly tear up the NAFTA deal and replace it with a much better deal.  Most of his term has been wasted negotiating the new “USMCA” trade deal that replaces it.  It finally went into effect on July 1st of this year, but the terms have been known for a long time, so you’d expect that manufacturers would have been busy implementing plans to get in compliance.  The results?  In July, the trade deficit with Mexico soared to $10. 6 billion.  When Trump took office in January, 2017 it was $3.8 billion.  Since then it has nearly tripled.
  3. When Trump took office, the deficit with China was $31.4 billion.  In July of this year it was $31.6 billion.  After Trump took office, the deficit with China continued to grow until, finally fed up with China’s promises to buy more American products, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on half of all Chinese products.  Almost immediately, the deficit with China began to shrink dramatically.  However, all momentum was lost with the signing of the “Phase 1” deal with China, when the U.S. agreed to halt plans to impose tariffs on the remainder of China’s products in exchange for Chinese promises to dramatically increase their purchases of American goods.  The results were predictable; China reneged on the deal.  They haven’t even measured up to the 2017 baseline that was used as a starting point.  Here’s the data, updated through July:  Phase 1 China Trade Deal 2020 YTD.  What has Trump done in response?  Nothing.  He continues to insist it’s a good deal, in much the same way that Obama stuck by his trade deal with South Korea while our deficit with them exploded.
  4. What progress was made in at least stagnating the deficit with China didn’t translate into any benefit to American workers.  Instead, it contributed to the tripling of the debt with Mexico and also ballooned the debt with Vietnam.  When Trump took office, the trade deficit with Vietnam, an economic back-water, was $3.3 billion per month.  In July of this year it was more than doubled to $6.8 billion per month.  Why?  Because no tariffs were applied to anyone other than China.  The tariffs motivated manufacturers to begin moving out of China, but there was no disincentive to simply move to secondary suppliers in Mexico, Vietnam and other places.

Some might say that such conclusions are unfair in the midst of the pandemic.  Not so.  The effect of the pandemic has been to cut economic activity to a depression-like level, and the effect of an economic slow-down has always been to shrink the trade deficit, not grow it.  That makes the enormous deficit in manufactured goods in July even more troubling.

Speaking of the pandemic, at least people are beginning to realize that being dependent on foreign suppliers for critical goods like ventilators and face masks is a threat to national security.  It’d be nice if that realization extended to other products that would just as easily be cut off during war time.  Better yet, wouldn’t it be nice if people realized that an economy that needs to stand on agriculture, construction, manufacturing and services is hollowed out and unstable if one of those legs is gone?

I don’t doubt Trump’s desire to truly “make America great again” by bringing back our manufacturing sector.  But he sees himself as a “deal-maker” and believes he can deal his way out of the trade deficit.  That’s where the problem lies.  For America, at least, there’s no such thing as a good trade deal.  I defy anyone to identify a single trade deal that has ever left America with anything but a growing trade deficit.

And forget about “free trade.”  That centuries-old concept is about as relevant to today’s trade environment as theories about a flat earth and how the sun rotates around it.  Today, trade is war – a war for increasingly scarce jobs in an ever more over-populated world.  Unlike America, the rest of the world understand this.  They know that what they really need is access to America’s market so that they can keep their bloated populations employed manufacturing goods for export.  Americans don’t have a clue.  They think it’s about lower price and more choice.

Had Trump simply applied tariffs everywhere where America was suffering a big trade deficit in manufactured goods, manufacturers would have come running back like refugees fleeing a war.  Instead of improving incrementally, our economy would have exploded.  Manufacturers would have eagerly snapped up any workers who lost their jobs to closures of restaurants, bars, gyms, movie theaters, etc. during the pandemic.  Trump’s re-election would be a foregone conclusion.  Instead, he’s going to be lucky to win.  Forget about the pandemic.  It’s his failure to make progress on truly making America great again that has left him vulnerable.

Don’t interpret this post as an endorsement of Biden.  It’s reported in the news today that Trump has criticized Biden as a “globalist.”  He’s not wrong.  But it’s not just Biden.  Until Trump came along, every politician, Democrat and Republican alike, were and still are globalists.  I’d vote for Biden in a heartbeat if he vowed to use tariffs to restore a balance of trade, but he won’t.  Though the results under Trump have been disappointing, things could and would be much worse under virtually anyone else, at least until more American politicians are willing to engage in the trade war that they don’t even acknowledge today.

 

 

 

 


Trump vs. Biden on Immigration

July 22, 2020

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-immigration-factbox/factbox-trump-and-biden-take-sharply-different-paths-on-immigration-idUSKCN24L122

The above-linked article is a comparison of Biden’s positions on immigration and Trump’s position and record on the same issue.  The article has a pro-Biden bias, casting his positions as having compassion for immigrants, while casting Trump’s positions as being more heartless and cruel.  Putting aside that bias, however, the comparison is relatively accurate.

Before going further, for the benefit of those new to this web site, my purpose is to bring attention to an economic consequence of population growth that has escaped economists because of their refusal to even consider the subject.  Simply put, beyond some optimum population density, further population growth begins to erode per capita consumption and, with it, employment.  While the macro economy continues to grow, it doesn’t grow at the same pace as the population.  The result is a bigger pie, but smaller slices for everyone.  Incrementally worsening poverty is the inescapable result.

With that said, let’s now talk about immigration.  Many claims are made about the supposed benefits of immigration and why it should continue.  It’s often said that immigrants are the engine of our economy, that they account for 25% of all new business start-ups, for example.  Just in the last few days, I heard it said that 19% of all long-haul truck drivers in America are immigrants.  Immigrants are doctors, engineers, scientists, professors, and so on.  At the other end of the scale, immigrants pick our crops, clean our hotel rooms, and do all of the other jobs that Americans seem loathe to do.

Regarding that last point, there’s some element of truth.  Few Americans work those jobs, but is it because they don’t like to work hard, or is it because the pay is too low?  I’d argue that many American workers would eagerly leave minimum wage jobs to do those other jobs if they paid more.  The wages are low because of the unlimited supply of immigrants who see those wages as a huge step up from what they can aspire to in their own countries.

As for those other workers – the entrepreneurs, the professional people, the long-haul truckers and skilled tradesmen, it’s true that a significant percentage are immigrants, but that’s only because a significant percentage of the population is immigrants.  They’re no more likely to fill those roles than native-born Americans.  Immigrants don’t possess any unique skills or powers to boost the economy.  They’re just people, and they want the same thing that all people want – to make a living and provide for their families.

Another claim often made is that America is enriched by the diversity that immigration provides.  Diversity, it is said, is a source of strength for our economy.  America is enriched by people with different backgrounds and different perspectives.

It can’t be argued that it isn’t interesting to learn about different cultures.  But the claim that diversity is a source of economic strength?  Baloney.  That’s a myth, invented and perpetuated by those who stand to benefit from never-ending population growth.  Who are they?  Corporations.  More people equate to more total sales and a bigger bottom line, while all of the negative consequences of population growth be damned.  Don’t believe me?  Go to the CIA World Fact Book web site and bring up a list of countries ranked by GDP per capita.  You’ll find the top of the list dominated by countries practically devoid of diversity.  Ranking high on the list is Ireland, a nation with virtually no diversity but, in terms of trade balance per capita, kicks America’s ass in trade far worse than any other country.  Diversity has nothing to do with economic prowess.

In the final analysis, the ONLY effect of immigration is to grow the population.  Growing the population makes sense only if you believe that we need more people – bigger and more crowded cities, more traffic, more demand on resources, more carbon emitters,  more trash in the landfills, and so on.  Worst of all, if you believe in the premise of this web site – that a growing population will doom the U.S. to worsening poverty by eroding per capita consumption – further population growth is tantamount to slow-motion economic suicide.

Joe Biden is an advocate for more immigration and, thus, more rapid population growth.  That position isn’t surprising and it’s not something unique to Democrats.  Virtually every Republican takes the same stance, though they tend to pay more lip service to opposing illegal immigration.  Both parties are in agreement on immigration.  Why?  Because that’s the stance that their corporate benefactors pay them to take.

Only very recently have some environmentalists begun to awaken to the fact that they’ve been hoodwinked by the faux-environmentalists who would have you believe that the planet can be saved from the vast array of negative consequences of worsening over-population through technological gimmicks like cutting carbon emissions, paving the way for more “sustainable development,” a corporate euphemism for more population growth.  In light of this awakening, policies that promote population growth may soon seem out-of-step with the reality of the challenges that confront this planet.

Trump is unique in being opposed to both legal and illegal immigration alike.  If we can believe him, his motivation is his belief that immigrants hold down wages and take jobs from American workers.  Is there an element of racism?  He denies it.

I wish Trump were a more likable person – more eloquent, more compassionate, less hot-tempered, a better role model.  Would I vote for Biden over Trump if Biden took a hard line on immigration like Trump?  You bet, especially if he also favored restoring a balance of trade through the use of tariffs, as Trump does.  If there were no differences in their positions on these two critical issues, I’d vote for Biden in a heartbeat.  But that’s not the case.

 

 


America’s Worst Trade Deficits in 2019

April 19, 2020

I’ve just finished the long, tedious process of analyzing the international trade data for 2019, which was posted by the Commerce Department in late February this year, instead of the mid-summer release caused by the government shutdown last year.  We’re going to look at this data in a lot of different ways in this and upcoming posts, so let’s begin with the basics.  The biggest problem with international trade is that the U.S. has been running a massive, ever-growing trade deficit for the past forty-five years.  All of the deficit is due to imports – and very weak exports – of manufactured products, and this category of products is where it hurts the most.  A deficit in manufactured products hurts the most because that’s where the most – and the highest-paying jobs – are lost.

So let’s begin this analysis with a list of our worst trade deficits in manufactured goods:  Top 20 Deficits, 2019.  The deficit with these 20 nations is almost $1 trillion!  It’s no great surprise that our deficit with China leads the list, by a wide margin.  And it would be worse by $20 billion if I hadn’t included Hong Kong with China.  (The Commerce Department tracks them separately, but we’re kidding ourselves to think that Hong Kong is an independent city-state.)  What’s new and interesting however is that the deficit with China is actually down substantially – by $73 billion – from 2018.  This is thanks to the Trump administration’s program of imposing tariffs on Chinese imports.  Look at how much the deficit with China has changed over the past ten years.  Though it grew rapidly for the first nine years of this period, it fell enough last year to yield only a 24% growth in the last ten.  That’s the 2nd slowest growth among the twenty nations on this list.

The deficit with Mexico has grown rapidly – 154% over the past ten years – to become our 2nd worst trade deficit.  However, if we are to believe the President, this should begin to change as the new USMCA agreement with Mexico and Canada – which replaces the now-defunct NAFTA agreement – begins to take effect this summer.  We’ll see.

Note that, contrary to the belief that low wages cause trade deficits, this list of our worst trade deficits is actually dominated by wealthy, developed nations, including many European nations.  In fact, if we add up the EU nations on this list, the combined deficit is $187 billion.  (The UK and Switzerland are not in the EU.)  By the way, the growth in the deficit with the U.K. – 3,125% in ten years – isn’t a typo.  When I first wrote Five Short Blasts in 2007, the U.K. was one of a few anomalies where, in spite of the high population density, we actually enjoyed a trade surplus with them.  But that trade surplus evaporated and, in 2010, the U.S. actually had a very small trade deficit with the U.K.  The deficit of $9.6 billion in 2019 is more than thirty times larger than the small deficit in 2010.  It’s growing rapidly.

As we’ve seen every year, it’s not low wages that cause our trade deficit.  So what does cause it?  I just gave you a hint.  Look at the population density of the nations on this list and compare it to the population density of the U.S. – 93 people/square mile.  The average population density of the nations on this list is almost seven times greater.  The combined population density of the nations on this list – the total number of people divided by the total land mass – is more than five times greater.  Only Sweden, near the bottom of the list, is less densely populated.  Nineteen of these twenty nations are more densely populated than the U.S.  Most are more than four times as densely populated.  Now that’s a powerful correlation to our balance of trade!

But why?  Why does something so seemingly unrelated have such a powerful effect on the balance of trade?  It’s because people who live in over-crowded conditions are incapable of using as many products as people who enjoy living in more wide open spaces.  They have no place to store them and no place to use them.  (Think cars.  the average Japanese person doesn’t have a garage and the roads are too crowded to drive anyway.)  Yet, they are every bit as productive.  The inescapable consequence is that, in order to be gainfully employed, they must produce far more than they consume, and there’s ony one thing that can be done with their excess production:  export it.  Unless the nation that those excess products are exported to takes some kind of action to keep those products out, their own citizens are now doomed to be put out of work by the market share they’ve lost.  Trading freely with badly overpopulated nations causes a massive shift of manufacturing jobs to the more densely populated nation.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.  Trade deficits are just one end of the trade spectrum.  What about surpluses?  Will we find that those nations are less densely populated, which the population density theory would predict?  Stay tuned.


“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.

 

 

 


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.

 


“Embrace change,” corporate America!

September 3, 2019

I was there, working in manufacturing in the 1980s, when a cold wind swept across America.  I was there when our corporations, until then led by manufacturing and the engineers who rose up through its ranks, kicked manufacturing to the curb and replaced their leadership with marketing people, skilled in the art of B.S., and bean counters, focused on nothing but cutting costs.  I was there when the United Nations and the World Trade Organization embarked on their campaign of raising poor nations out of poverty through the systematic plundering of jobs from the U.S. – as many jobs as possible without tipping the balance of power in favor of bad actors who might threaten this new concept of “globalism” and the “New World Order” – the new regime of parasites dedicated to keeping its U.S. host alive just enough to keep the blood flowing.

I was there when they began scaling back manufacturing operations, laying off good workers and closing plants.  “Embrace change,” we were told constantly by business managers with an air of condescension, as though they were addressing fools too dumb to recognize good things and good opportunities when they see it.  We had made careers of embracing change – change for the better – changes that automated our factories, boosted production, cut emissions, improved quality and grew profits.  Now we were being insulted by con men whose only goal was the next promotion, which required laying off more people than the next guy.

I was there at a big division-wide meeting – one of those meetings whose purpose was ostensibly to gather input, but it was clear from the start that input was the last thing they wanted.  What they wanted was “buy in” for the new direction of the company.  In other words, you’d better accept what’s coming enthusiastically, with a big smile on your face, if you know what’s good for you.  The leader, the division manager, asked, “what are we going to need to succeed?”  I raised my hand and replied – perhaps naively or perhaps in a thinly-veiled attempt to stand up for what I and many others present had built our careers around.  “We’ll need excellence in manufacturing.”  I was stunned by his arrogant, dismissive reply.  “Why?  We don’t need that.  We can buy that!”  I thought to myself, “you dumbass, you can buy it if you want, but you still need it, and now you’re at the mercy of your supplier.”  But it would have been a pointless example of falling on your own sword to come right out and say it.  “Embrace change.”  Here it comes.

Our final days before closing the doors were spent writing operating procedures, documenting every detail of our operations, and then training workers brought over from foreign subsidiaries.  We were forced to facilitate the widespread technology transfer that played a critical role in ruining the American economy.

It’s decades later and the tables have turned.  As it always does, the pendulum swung too far.  The globalist corporations over-played their hand, planting the seeds of political change.  Americans are sick of working for minimum wages and being the world’s chumps.  America itself can no longer fund massive trade deficits.  The wind has shifted and now blows cold on globalist dreams of reaping big profits from a China transformed into western-style consumers and from plundering the American market with cheap products.  Those dreams never had a chance.  China will never be more than a sweat-shop labor pool with their gross over-population dooming any hope of a western-style, consumer-driven economy.

In the meantime, a lot of weeds sprouted in the devastated American economic landscape.  By “weeds,” I mean business models that bring so little value to the table that they are dependent on virtual slave labor wages.  Cheap junk of poor quality has perpetuated a throw-away mindset among consumers.  Cheap clothing made of thin, flimsy fabric.  Tools that break after one use.  Auto parts and appliances that break as soon as the warranty expires.  An economy dependent on consumers burning through their severance packages.  A retail economy that employed laid-off workers manning check-out lines until everyone had burned through their savings.  An economy totally dependent on consumers buying stuff that they had no hand in producing.  All the while the economy grew.  It didn’t matter if the growth was flowers or weeds, as long as the color was green – money pouring into corporate coffers.

In the wake of Trump’s tariffs on China, retailers are having a hissy-fit when their suppliers ask for a price increase to cover the cost of the tariffs.  Products with high perceived value needn’t fear.  They’ll always find a way to be marketed successfully even if their prices do rise a few percent.  Those with low value will bite the dust.  Good riddance.  And retailers who turn their backs on good products just because the supplier needs to raise prices to make a profit – whether to cover the cost of the tariffs or, better yet, to begin manufacturing domestically – will lose out to retailers who understand their value, and they too will fail and vanish.  Again, good riddance.  It’s not like there’s a shortage of retailers.

So, corporate America, the shoe’s now on the other foot.  EMBRACE CHANGE!  Think of the possibilities and opportunities – the opportunity to cut your shipping costs dramatically, to be in charge of your manufacturing again instead of being at the mercy of Chinese companies, to boost sales to American consumers with more buying power thanks to rising wages.  EMBRACE CHANGE!!  Maybe you can mitigate some of the increased cost by cutting fat at the top layers of your organizations – those con men who grew fat and rich by ruining the lives of the people who actually did the work.  EMBRACE CHANGE!!!  Maybe you’ll survive.  If not, good riddance and adios.  Don’t let the screen door hit you on the way out.  Your workers will be fine.  The winning companies will snap them right up.