America’s Best Trading Partners in 2016

July 12, 2017

In my previous post we found that the list of America’s worst trade partners in 2016 – those with whom the U.S. has the biggest trade deficit in manufactured goods – in terms of both total dollars and in per capita terms – was dominated by nations whose population densities were far above the world median.  Only two of the twenty worst nations had population densities below the world median.

So what about the other end of the spectrum – the nations with whom the U.S. enjoyed trade surpluses in manufactured goods in 2016?  If there is a relationship between population density and trade imbalance, we should see the opposite effect – that the list is dominated by nations with low population densities.  Here’s the list of America’s twenty biggest trade surpluses in manufactured goods in 2016:  Top 20 Surpluses, 2016

It isn’t as clear as you might expect, and here’s why.  The fact that all oil around the globe is priced in U.S. dollars makes oil exporters float to the top of the list, regardless of population density.  Those nations with whom the U.S. has a trade deficit in oil are high-lighted in yellow.  Of these twenty nations, eleven were net exporters of oil to the U.S.  Why does this matter?  Because American dollars, aside from being legal tender for purchasing oil anywhere in the world, can only be used as legal tender in the U.S.  That means that all those “petro-dollars” have to be used to buy something from the U.S. – primarily two things:  U.S. government bonds and products made in the U.S.  While eleven net oil exporters appear on this list, only one appeared on the list of our top twenty worst trade deficits – Mexico.

Still, the population density effect is in play, even among these net oil exporters.  Believe it or not, Canada (not Saudi Arabia or some other Middle Eastern country) is our biggest source of imported oil.  With Canada, our trade surplus in manufactured goods is bigger than our deficit in oil by about $6 billion per year.  With Saudia Arabia, trade in oil and manufactured goods was almost perfectly balanced.  The same with New Zealand.  With Norway, our surplus in manufactured goods exceeded the deficit in oil by over $3 billion.

In addition, there are two very densely populated nations that appear on this list who are not oil exporters – the Netherlands and Belgium.  There’s a reason for this also.  Both are tiny European nations who happen to share the only deep water port on the Atlantic coast of Europe.  They use this to their advantage, buying American exports and then re-selling them to the rest of Europe.  Taken as a whole, the trade deficit with the European Union in 2016 was $138 billion, which would rank it 2nd on the list of our worst trade deficits, just after China.  The population density of the EU is 310 people per square mile – a little less than China.  And, in per capita terms, our trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EU was $274, a little worse than China.

Now let’s look at a list of our top twenty trade surpluses in per capita terms in 2016:  Top 20 Per Capita Surpluses, 2016.  This results in some small nations floating up onto the list:  Brunei (an oil exporter), Iceland, Belize, Guyana (an oil exporter), the Falkland Islands, Suriname, Oman and Equatorial Guinea (the latter two also being net oil exporters).  But in terms of population density, both lists are pretty similar.  The average population density of the nations on both lists are 213 people per square mile and 197, respectively.  Compare that to the lists of nations with whom we have the largest trade deficits where the population densities were 729 (our largest deficits in dollar terms) and 522 (our largest deficits in per capita terms).  But let’s look at those lists another way.  Let’s calculate the overall population density (the total population divided by the total land area) for the nations with whom we had the twenty largest per capita trade deficits vs. the nations with whom we had the twenty largest per capita surpluses.  Those figures are 372 people per square mile vs. 20 people per square mile.

Oh, and by the way, look at the purchasing power parity of both lists.  They’re remarkably the same.  Clearly, wealth (or wages) play no role in determining the balance of trade whatsoever.

The data couldn’t be more clear.  While other factors may come into play in trade, their effects are dwarfed by the role of population density in determining the balance of trade.  Free trade with densely populated nations is almost assured to yield terrible results for the U.S. – a huge trade deficit in manufactured goods, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the ruination of the manufacturing sector of our economy.  Because of the role of over-crowding in eroding per capita consumption, those nations consume little but are very bit as productive.  So they come to the trade table with a bloated labor force hungry for work, and a wilted market, unable to consume our exports in equal measure.  Free trade with more sparsely populated nations, on the other hand, is likely to yield the opposite result.  Any trade policy that doesn’t use tariffs to maintain a balance of trade with densely populated nations is doomed to failure, as decades of America’s free trade policy has proven.

We’ll look at even more data from 2016 in upcoming posts.  Stay tuned.

 

Advertisements

America’s Worst Trade Partners in 2016

July 6, 2017

America’s trade policy is a disaster.  There’s just no other way to describe it.  In 2016, our trade deficit rose to almost $505 billion, beating the old record set in 2015.  We can’t continue on this path.  An economy that has that much money drained from it can only avoid a permanent state of recession through deficit spending, which is exactly what we’ve done for decades, and it’s bankrupting us.  Our infrastructure is crumbling.  The Social Security trust fund is on a path to bankruptcy.  Medicare is already there.  Household incomes and net worth are declining.  And the government can’t come up with a scheme that makes health care affordable.

But what to do?  How did “free trade,” the darling of economists, back-fire so badly for the U.S.?  A quick glance at the balance of trade data, which is broken into “services” and “goods,” reveals a nice surplus in services.  It was in this category that the U.S. economy was really expected to shine, and it has.  But the “goods” part of the equation has run completely off the rails, with the deficit in goods dwarfing the small surplus in services.

What’s the problem with “goods?”  Is it oil?  There was a time, decades ago, when the deficit in goods was due almost entirely to oil imports.  But no more.  It has shrunk dramatically and now accounts for less than 25% of the goods deficit.  The vast majority of our deficit in goods is due to manufactured products.  So let’s focus there.

Let’s begin with a look at which nations account for our biggest trade deficits in manufactured goods.  Here’s a list of the top twenty in 2016:  Top 20 Deficits, 2016.  China is at the top of the list, yielding a trade deficit that’s more than four times as large as the next nation on the list, Japan.  In fact, so large is the trade deficit with China that it is larger than all of the nations of the rest of the world combined.  It would seem that China must be doing something underhanded.  Some say that the problem is low wages in China.  Others claim that China manipulates its currency, keeping it artificially low, thus making its exports cheaper for American consumers and making American imports too expensive for Chinese consumers.  Or maybe it’s just the sheer size of China, a big country with one fifth of the world’s population.

What is it about this list of nations that they have in common?  The list includes nations from Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Central America.  It includes some of the wealthiest nations on earth – like Germany, Switzerland and Ireland – casting doubt on the “low wage” theory.

I mentioned China’s size.  But geographic size can’t be much of a factor.  Without any people, we wouldn’t even have trade with any particular country or region.  Take Antarctica.  It’s bigger than China, but we have no trade with that continent at all.  People are what’s important.  It’s their consumption of products that drives trade.  So maybe that’s where we should start looking.  Perhaps the number of people in a country – or their population density – is a factor.  So let’s take a look.  Let’s express the trade deficit with each one of those countries in per capita terms.  Now look at the list:  Top 20 Per Capita Deficits, 2016.

The median population density of the 165 nations* included in this study is 184 people per square mile.  The population density of the U.S. is apprximately 90 people per square mile.  Seventeen of the twenty nations on this list have population densities above the median.  The odds against that happening are 128:1.  Conversely, the chances of that happening are only 0.7%.  Clearly, population density is a factor.  The average population density of these nations is 522 people per square mile – almost three times the world median and more than five times the density of the U.S.

In per capita terms, China barely even makes the list, ranking 19th out of these twenty nations. Eleven of the twenty nations are European Union nations.

And what about the claim that low wages are to blame for trade deficits?  That’s clearly nonsense.  The average “purchasing power parity” (roughly analogous to wages) is just over $46,000 – on a par with the U.S.

On average, the per capita trade deficit with these nations has risen by 88% in the past ten years.

The fact that America’s deficit with Ireland, with a population density close to the world median, is almost three times that of Switzerland, the number two nation on the list, is an indication that something else is going on that tilts trade in favor of Ireland, and indeed there is.  Ireland is a tax haven and America is a fool to tolerate it.

Why is population density such a dominant factor in determining the balance of trade?  It’s because of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption.  It’s because people living in crowded conditions consume less but are just as productive.  The result is that they come to the trade table with a bloated labor force and an emaciated market.  To understand more about why this happens, read Five Short Blasts.  It’s also the theme of this blog.

Any trade policy that fails to account for the role of population density in driving trade imbalances and fails to employ tariffs to maintain a balance of trade with overpopulated nations is doomed to failure.  America’s free trade policy is blind to this factor.  The resulting trade deficit is inevitable.

Next we’ll take a look at the list of America’s twenty best trade partners.  If population density is a factor, we should see the opposite results on that list.  It should be dominated by nations with low population densities.  Stay tuned.

————————————————-

  *  There are 229 nations in the world.  Tiny island nations and city-states have been excluded from the study.  Trade with these nations is minuscule, accounting for less than 1% of U.S. trade.  The U.S. tends to have a surplus with such nations, regardless of their population density, since their economies are primarily based on tourism and not manufacturing.


Trump was right to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement

June 3, 2017

Let me begin by making clear that I am an environmentalist.  It was my concern for the environment – especially my little piece of the environment that I enjoy in the north woods – that was the genesis of my discovery of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, which I presented and explained in Five Short Blasts.  It’s a clear-eyed look at just where unending population growth will take us.  Few have devoted as much of their time to trying to save the planet.

Let me also make clear that I’m neither a GOP conservative nor a Democrat.  As I stated in Five Short Blasts, the platforms of both parties – both of which embrace and promote population growth – produce nothing more than weaving left and right along a path to ruin.  So this post isn’t politically motivated.

“Climate change,” the now-politically correct term for global warming, is real.  The link to human activity is undeniable.  I’ve watched Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”  and agree with its premise.  Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane are building up in the atmosphere and trapping solar heat.  The science is clear.  Kudos to the scientists.

But shame on environmentalists.  The environmental movement has been a colossal failure.  If it weren’t, we wouldn’t now find ourselves in the fix that we’re in.  We wouldn’t be in the midst of a mass extinction.  The dire consequences of global warming are now inevitable.  Environmentalists admit as much.  And who is to blame for all of this?  There’s plenty of blame to go around but it could be argued that no one is more to blame than the leaders of the environmental movement themselves.  There may be a special place in hell for these people for what they’ve done.

Why do I say such a thing?  A little history is in order.  Going back decades, to the ’80s, if my memory serves me correctly, the environmental movement was in trouble.  The Vietnam war was over and young, impatient activists seized upon the environment as a new cause.  Their approach was radical and intolerant.  Industry, the civilian half of the “military industrial complex” that was the object of so much scorn by young radicals during the Vietnam era, was demonized as the enemy of humanity by the environmental movement.  The environmental movement was anti-industry, anti-development anti-everything to the point where they were perceived as being anti-humanity.

At the same time, as a result of new trade policies ushered in by GATT (the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, enacted in 1947), the de-industrialization of America was underway.  Factories were closing.  People were losing their jobs.  And the country was being flooded with imports from Japan.  Eager to find a scapegoat, industry successfully blamed the environmental movement for making it impossible to continue manufacturing in America.  People began to despise these young, impatient, intolerant and uncompromising environmentalist radicals.

Industry had its own image problems.  Both sides saw an opportunity and began to collaborate.   The environmental movement softened its approach to development and, in return for the environmentalists’ endorsement of new development projects, industry began to embrace some of their more reasonable demands and causes.  The environmental movement made a deal with the devil and the concept of “sustainable development” was born.

Soon after, the company I worked for served up an example.  They announced plans to build a new plant on a pristine “green field” site – a piece of undeveloped property they owned.  At the same time, they also announced that another such piece of property was being set aside as a sort of wildlife refuge, never to be developed.  This, they proudly proclaimed, was a prime example of “sustainable development.”  “How the hell is that sustainable?” I wondered.  Half of the property in question was now gone.  It didn’t take a genius to figure out where that will ultimately lead if such “development” is “sustained.”

The term is an oxymoron and there is no such thing as “sustainable development.”  It makes me bristle every time I hear it.  By it’s very definition, “development” means putting natural resources to work to enhance the lives of human-kind.  There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize that, in a finite world, the process has to stop at some point.  It can’t be sustained forever. A finite resource can only sustain a certain number of people at a high standard of living.  Even a child should be able to understand this.  Yet, that is exactly what corporate leaders and their environmentalist lackeys would have you believe – that we can continue growing our population and continue to consume more and more, and thus grow their profits – “sustainably.” Forever.

Of course, the leaders of the environmental movement responsible for this mess won’t find themselves alone.  If there’s a hotter place in hell, it’s occupied by economists – those people who, in the wake of their Malthusian black eye, proclaimed that there is no limit to man’s ability to overcome all obstacles to growth, and vowed never again to even consider that population growth could present challenges.  It is yet another claim unable to stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny, but is the foundation upon which the concept of “sustainable development” is built. Incredibly, the environmental movement has bought into this.

With all of this said, I decided to do my own objective evaluation of the Paris Climate Agreement to decide for myself the wisdom of Trump’s move.  I started with Wikipedia’s take on the agreement, but then decided to go right to the United Nations’ web site that documents the whole thing.  I wanted to read the agreement for myself.  But, try as I might, I’ll be darned if I can find it.  There’s lots of explanation from the UN about the agreement, but I couldn’t find the agreement itself.  That kind of thing always makes me a little suspicious.

Anyway, here’s some key aspects of the agreement:

  • Certain few developed countries – most notably the U.S. – are targeted to generate all of the reduction in greenhouse gases.  Many undeveloped nations are actually allowed to increase their emissions in order to allow them to develop.  China, the world’s worst polluter, committed to only 25% of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in per capita terms, that the U.S. committed to achieving.
  • Aid, beginning at a minimum of $100 billion per year above and beyond aid that nations are already receiving, must be provided by developed nations to help undeveloped nations develop faster and to help them deal with the effects of climate change.
  • Each nation sets its own goals, consistent with the overall goal to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius or less, but then must report annually on their progress toward meeting their goals.

Already, I was beginning to have my doubts.  Forcing dramatic emissions cuts on the U.S. while allowing other nations to increase their emissions seems to preclude the U.S. from ever re-balancing trade and rebuilding the manufacturing sector of the economy, even if it meant producing products in plants that operated under strict environmental regulations as opposed to the filthy factories spewing smog in China.  This feels like some sort of “eco-trade barrier.”

Secondly, the requirement that wealthy nations boost their aid to developing nations by a minimum of another $100 billion per year to help them develop seems like a money grab.  We all know where the vast majority of funding would come from – the U.S. – just as the U.S. funds a disproportionate share of the U.N., the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, NATO, and virtually every other multi-national organization.

Finally, as I scanned through the many web pages that the UN serves up, I found the real goal of the agreement.  In the UN’s own words, here it is:

  • The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.” It states that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

And there it is!  “… enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”  This agreement isn’t about saving the planet or the environment.  It’s about keeping environmental degradation just tolerable enough that we can continue to pack the planet with more corporate customers.

If climate change is the result of human activity, then isn’t it logical that any effort to combat it should begin with a focus on limiting the number of humans or their activity?  What is gained if we all cut our greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 50% but then double the population?  Absolutely nothing!

The U.S. has already made strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn’t even close to being enough.  To achieve the cuts that President Obama committed to in the Kyoto protocol – cuts of 80% or more – the plan relies heavily on “carbon capture.”  That is, CO2 would be extracted from exhaust stacks and stored in tanks or underground.  Essentially, it’s a process of creating a CO2 “landfill” which, if we all cross our fingers and toes and hope real hard, maybe it’ll never leak and create such a catastrophic jump in atmospheric CO2 levels that the planet is almost instantly cooked!

Any approach to the climate change problem that doesn’t begin with a plan to stabilize and gradually reduce the human population to a level where we can all enjoy a high standard of living without threatening the planet is a hoax.  Climate change is real, but this Paris agreement is just that – a hoax.  It has little to nothing to do with fighting climate change.  Instead, it’s globalization and “sustainable development” on steroids.  There is an old saying that goes something like this:  “If you can’t bewilder them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.”  That’s exactly what “sustainable development” does.

Critics have mocked President Trump, saying that he is incapable of grasping the complexities of the Paris agreement.  It could be argued that perhaps it was President Obama who didn’t understand that the agreement he proclaimed to be such an accomplishment actually does nothing for the climate and simply suckered the U.S. into yet another self-destructive deal.  And it’s time for all people who are concerned about climate change and the environment to wake up to the fact that the environmental movement has been hijacked by those who profit from plundering the planet and that they, too, are being suckered by the concept of “sustainable development.”

I’m not terribly concerned.  I believe that if the world doesn’t wake up to the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, then the unemployment, poverty and rising death rate that it fosters are going to do more to put a lid on greenhouse gas emissions than the Paris agreement could have ever hoped to achieve.

In the meantime, other world leaders have rushed to the defense of the Paris agreement.  No surprise.  They can kiss goodbye the $100 billion (per year!) they were counting on.  Plus, championing the Paris agreement is all upside for politicians with no downside.  Everyone loves them for their concern for the planet and they can never be held accountable, since it’s impossible to gauge success under the agreement.  It’s like a campaign promise that never has to be kept because no one can tell whether or not you’ve delivered.

Americans have been fleeced far too much in the name of globalization.  Clearly, Trump wasn’t baffled by this BS.  I applaud him for having the guts to walk away from this deal and for being willing to take the political heat for doing so.

 

 


Anti-border tax coalition

April 20, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-lobbying-idUSKBN17C2HQ

I’ve been predisposed for a week or so and it’s now time to get caught up on some things.  There’s been a lot in the news lately regarding Trump administration policies on immigration and trade.  I’m extremely pleased with what’s happening on immigration, less so with what I hear about Trump waffling on the idea of a “border tax” (another name for tariffs).

But I’ll start with the above-linked story that came out last week because this is a perfect example of the divergence of interests that takes place when a nation becomes “economically over-populated” or takes on the characteristics of such an economy through free trade with a badly overpopulated nation.  For the benefit of those unfamiliar with this concept, this divergence of interests is one of the consequences of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption.  As a society becomes more densely populated, the need to crowd together and economize space begins to erode per capita consumption.  As per capita consumption declines, so too does per capita employment.  The result is rising unemployment and poverty.   It’s in individuals’ best interest – in the best interest of the common good – that this situation be avoided.  (To better understand this concept, I encourage you to read Five ShortBlasts.)

However, while per capita consumption may begin to decline as a population density reaches a certain level, total consumption continues to rise with a growing population.  Who benefits from that?  Anyone in the business of selling products.  Not only do they benefit from the increase in sales volume, but they benefit further as the labor force grows faster than demand, putting downward pressure on wages.  Thus, it’s in corporations’ best interest to see population growth continue forever, and to pursue more markets through free trade.

So it’s in the best interest of the common good that we avoid meshing our economy through free trade with nations whose markets are emaciated by overcrowding and who come to the trading table with nothing but bloated labor forces hungry for work.  But it’s in corporations’ best interests to grow the overall customer base through free trade with those same nations.  So it comes as no surprise that a big-business coalition is eager to steer lawmakers away from any tax plan that would include a “border tax” (a tariff) that might shut them out of their foreign markets.

They call themselves “Americans for Affordable Products,” making it sound as though it is individual Americans who make up this coalition and not global corporations.  They want us to believe that products will become less affordable.  While prices for imports may rise, they want you to forget that those increases would be more than offset by rising incomes and falling tax rates.  They don’t care if the border tax benefits you.  All they care about is that it may not necessarily benefit them.

So which of these competing interests will lawmakers heed – their wealthy corporate benefactors or the angry Americans who swept the Trump administration into power on his promise to enact a border tax and bring our manufacturing jobs back home?  Money talks and I fear that groups like this coalition are having an effect.  Trump and Republicans would be wise to ignore them.  Democrats paid the price for ignoring the plight of middle-class Americans when Obama betrayed his promise of “hope and change.”  Those same middle-class Americans will pull the trigger on Trump too if he doesn’t come through.

 


American Millenials Far Worse Off Than Their Parents at the Same Stage in Life

January 16, 2017

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/01/13/millennials-falling-behind-boomer-parents/96530338/

An analysis of Federal Reserve data by the advocacy group “Young Invincibles,” released on Friday, finds that the millenial generation – especially white millenials – are far worse off economically than their baby-boomer parents were at the same stage in life – in 1989.  (See the above linked article.)

  • The median net worth of millenials is 56% lower.
  • Median income has fallen 21% in spite of the fact that a larger percentage of millenials (approximately 50% more) have a college education compared to baby boomers.
  • Home ownership is down by 3%.
  • Millenials are saddled with “drastically higher” student debt.

The article observes that “the analysis fits into a broader pattern of diminished opportunity.”

Looking beyond the Federal Reserve data, millenials are clearly much worse off than their parents in many other ways:

  • While most employers offered pensions in 1989, few do today.
  • The cost of health care is orders-of-magnitude higher than it was in 1989.
  • Good jobs were still fairly plentiful in 1989.  Not today.  The example cited in the article of a college-educated lady earning minimum wage making pizza isn’t a one-off.  It’s pretty typical.
  • The millenial generation is famous for depending on their parents for housing and additional support beyond that.  It’s not a matter of immaturity among millenials.  They do it out of necessity.  In 1989, no self-respecting baby boomer would be caught dead living with his/her parents.  There was no need.

None of this should come as any surprise to those who understand the consequences of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption.  It’s precisely what I predicted in Five Short Blasts, which I began writing in 1993.  Since 1989, the U.S. population has grown by approximately 25%.  But, worse than that, our effective population density has exploded by 200% since 1989 by economically erasing our borders and attempting to trade freely with badly overpopulated nations who prey on our market and bring nothing in return to the trading table but bloated labor forces, hungry to take jobs from Americans.  Diminished opportunity and worsening poverty is inescapable in those circumstances.

Sadly, most millenials are oblivious to what’s been done to them through globalization, which has been slickly packaged and sold to them as some sort of utopian state where we all live in perfect harmony together, masking the underlying truth – that their economic civil rights have been trampled by the greed of global corporations who feed on population growth to stoke their bottom lines.

 

 

 


U.S. Life Expectancy Declines in 2015 as Death Rates Rise

December 13, 2016

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/12/08/has-us-life-expectancy-maxed-out-first-decline-since-1993/95134818/

As reported in the above-linked article last week, the National Center for Health Statistics  (NCHS) reported that the average life expectancy for Americans born in 2015 actually fell by one month – from 78.9 years to 78.8 years.  Here’s a link to the full report:  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db267.pdf

This was the first decline since 1993 when the average life expectancy fell from 75.8 to 75.5 years – the only other decline since record-keeping of this statistic began in 1980.

One year does not make a trend, so one may question the significance of the decline.  However, there is a trend evident in the data.  Prior to 2o15, the longest stretch of flat life expectancy was three years, from 1984 to 1986, when the average life expectancy held at 74.7 years.  The decline in 2015 brings life expectancy to the same level it was at four years ago in 2012.  And it’s not as though human life expectancy is reaching some sort of limit at that level.  Thirty nations have a higher life expectancy – extending well into the 80’s.

Average life expectancy is a function of the death rate.  The NCHS lists the top ten leading causes of death in the U.S.  Among these top ten causes, the death rate rose for all but one – cancer.  But in spite of the fact that cancer and heart disease are far and away the two leading causes of death, the rise in every category except cancer was enough to more than offset the decline in the death rate due to cancer.  It seems that there may be something at work that crosses all categories of death rate.

It’s very likely that that underlying cause is worsening poverty.  Though poverty is never considered a cause of death, being an outside factor instead of a medical factor, it is far and away the number one killer in the world.  Consider this:  among those nations with a longer life expectancy than the U.S., the average “purchasing power parity” (or “PPP,” a measure of income) is over $41,000, the thirteen nations who rank at the bottom in terms of life expectancy (less than 50 in some cases) have an average PPP of less than $3,000.  It takes money to live a long life.  It takes money to pay for health care, to eat a healthy diet, to maintain vehicles in a safe condition, to hold depression at bay, and so on.

The U.S. ranks right up there (19th) with the top nations in terms of PPP.  However, the median household income peaked in the U.S. in 1999 at $57,909.  By 2012 it had slipped to $52,666.  It should come as no surprise, then, that average life expectancy since that time has been flat or, as in 2015, actually declining.

This is precisely the outcome, the inescapable collision between a growing population density and declining per capita consumption, that I warned of in Five Short Blasts.  Relying on population growth as a crutch for economic growth, the U.S. has continued to grow its actual population and has dramatically exacerbated the effect by exploding its “effective” population by engaging in free trade with badly overpopulated nations.  The manufacturing sector of our economy has been gutted and the supply-demand equation for labor has been thrown out-of-balance, driving down incomes.

The Obama administration can fool itself all it wants with its gimmicked statistics on jobs and unemployment, but they can’t alter the real world consequences of its failed trade and immigration policies.  Poverty is the very mechanism by which nature will eventually correct the problem of human overpopulation.  The 2015 life expectancy data may be the first indication that that process has begun in America.

 


More Thoughts on Trump Victory

November 10, 2016

I’ll preface this by reminding readers that, in various posts in the past, I have described Donald Trump as a buffoon and as a “foul SOB.”  In spite of that, I encouraged you to vote for him as I did for one reason:  his stands on illegal immigration and trade align well with the conclusions of my book, Five Short Blasts.  To very briefly summarize, there is an unrecognized (by economists) inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption which has two major implications – that population growth beyond a certain level becomes a cancerous growth that eats away the economy, and that free trade with badly overpopulated nations accelerates this effect dramatically.  The effect of these on our economy is so over-riding that these issues dwarf all others.  I would vote for any candidate – Republican, Democrat or Independent – whose positions address these issues.

With that said, the following are some random thoughts on what happened in this election:

  1. Any party that focuses only on minorities and ignores the majority is doomed to fail.  The Democratic Party did exactly that, taking its historical support from working-class Americans for granted and ignoring them and polling data that consistently showed their deep concern about the direction of the country.
  2. The Republican Party has also blundered in its strategy of making itself indistinguishable from Democrats, particularly when it comes to the key issues of trade and immigration, contenting itself with splitting the vote while hoping to sway a small 0.5% toward their side.  Were it not for the fact that Trump – not a true Republican – chose to identify himself as one and to fight tooth and nail to prevail against their slate of traditional Republicans – the Republican party would have lost this election.
  3. This election was all about a rejection of the globalism and open borders that both parties embraced.  I don’t think either party, even now, fully understands this.  Whichever party embraces a new strategy and platform based on our nation’s right of self-determination will succeed going forward.
  4. Though it pains me to quote him, Bill Clinton said it best in the ’91 election:  “It’s the economy, stupid.”  Indeed it is, and not necessarily the macro-economy but each individual’s own share of the economy.  Only when the vast majority of Americans are enjoying the fruits of a healthy economy can other issues like the environment take center stage.  Both parties ignored the polling data that showed the country was headed in the wrong direction and that voters were fed up with their politicians.  The Obama administration chose to fool itself with gimmicked economic data.  Few voters were fooled.
  5. Clinton erred when she tried to portray Trump’s position on illegal immigration as racist and xenophobic.  Illegal immigration is a concern for all Americans and it’s a mistake to believe that Hispanic Americans would uniformly embrace it just because most illegal immigrants are Hispanic.  Many have been here a long time now and identify themselves as Americans first, just as I identify myself as American and not Irish.  As I said in Five Short Blasts, I wouldn’t care if it was Ireland that we shared a border with instead of Mexico.  Illegal immigration has to be stopped.  The Democrats were shocked to learn that nearly 30% of Hispanics voted for Trump.  Many were insulted by the assumption that they favor illegal immigration over the interests of their own country just because of their ancestry.  The Clinton campaign was no less guilty of stereotyping Hispanics than Trump was perceived to be.
  6. The Democrats are almost as guilty of taking the black vote for granted as they were of taking white working-class voters for granted.  Trump made a play for the black vote.  It was criticized as a clumsy attempt, but he made a very valid point, that the inner cities seem to be little better off and have little to show for their support for the Democratic party.  Trump correctly pointed out that his trade policies aimed at rebuilding the manufacturing sector of the economy would, if anything, benefit the black community even more than the white community.  Well, it didn’t seem to resonate that much, though Clinton got a little less of the black vote than Obama did.  But Trump has laid down a marker for the black community.  They may have been skeptical of what he said, but they’ll likely remember if, in fact, a manufacturing turn-around produces a renaissance in the inner cities.  Democrats, beware.
  7. The Clinton campaign’s mantra was that “when they go low, we go high!”  Yet, in the final days of the campaign, they did just the opposite.  They took the worst, most crude elements of the campaign and bundled them into commercials.  The commercials criticized Trump for things not fit for our children to hear, yet the Clinton campaign had no problem with bombarding our children with those things incessantly on prime time television – even during the World Series.  It came across as very two-faced and, if anything, made Clinton  seem more of a sleeze-bag than Trump.
  8. Meanwhile, the commercials aired by the Trump campaign in the last couple of weeks were very positive.  There was one commercial  that took on globalism and the globalist elites who profited at the expense of everyone else.  It was a dynamite, highly-effective commercial that should have begun airing sooner and should have aired far more often. But I saw it only once (and I watch a fair amount of television in the evenings).  What happened to it?
  9. Along those same lines, the Clinton campaign held a concert that head-lined Beyonce and Jay Z.  While some fawn over this couple, many people are offended by the lewd “twerking” of Beyonce and the filthy and racist (the “n” word) lyrics of Jay Z.  This isn’t a racist observation.  I personally find Miley Cyrus to be just as offensive.  Clinton’s condoning of these lyrics destroyed her credibility when criticizing Trump.  The concert was a dumb move.  What purpose did it serve?  Did she really think that Beyonce and Jay Z would swing undecided voters to their camp?
  10. The spending by the Clinton campaign dwarfed that of the Trump campaign, to no avail.  It’s not the first time we’ve seen such an outcome.  It demonstrates once again that it only takes a lot of money to sell lousy products, and good products sell themselves.  For all the concern about big money in politics, maybe it doesn’t really have that much of an effect.  So, hey big donors, if you want to waste your money, you’re perfectly welcome to plow it back into our economy through the ad agencies.  Either way, the money is now out of your accounts and into the hands of people who need it more.  Thanks!

Up next:  some thoughts about the challenges facing Trump and what it means for the world going forward.