Tag Archives: USA

Least educated workers a symbol of recovering US economy

During the GFC the American workers who suffered the most were those without a high school diploma – their unemployment rate was 15.6% in the summer of 2009 more than three times the peak unemployment rate for college graduates – refers to cyclical unemployment. Furthermore this particular group of unemployed were also those that found it hardest to get back into employment. However by July this year the Labour Department recorded that the unemployment rate for those without a high school diploma fell to 5.1 percent in July this year. This is surprising considering that low-skilled workers, who makeup 7.2% fo the labour force, were seen as the least likely to recover from a recession

Cyclical unemployment (or demand deficient) occurs when there is not enough demand to employ all those who want to work. It is a type that Keynesian economists focus on particularly, as they believe it happens when there is a disequilibrium in the economy. It is also often known as cyclical unemployment because it will vary with the trade cycle. When the economy is booming, there will be lots of demand and so firms will be employing large numbers of workers. Demand-deficient unemployment will at this stage of the cycle be fairly low. If the economy slows down, then demand will begin to fall. When this happens firms will begin to lay workers off as they do not need to produce so much. Demand-deficient unemployment rises. The behaviour of demand-deficient unemployment will exactly mirror the trade cycle.

The increasing trade war between the USA and China seems to have done little to put a damper on hiring. The manufacturing sector, which is particularly sensitive to exports, was robust, adding 37,000 jobs.

Source: New York Times – 2nd August 2018

US and China trade war and what it means.

Doing trade barriers with my NCEA Level 2 class and below is a good clip from Al Jazeera about the issues that are arising from it and who will lose the least from a trade war. The last ten years saw a marked improvement in trade between the United States and China. But Trump’s battle of the tariffs is threatening that. And there are fears of an all-out trade war. The U.S. is putting tariffs on 50 billion dollars worth of Chinese imports. The president says he wants a fairer trade with China. But Beijing’s fired back with a tit-for-tat response. It’s published a list of more than 600 American products it plans to hit with its own taxes. Is it a case of who blinks first in this economic brinkmanship? And what will it mean for global trade? The comments by Philippe LeGrain are particularly good.

USA China trade war – who would win?

After a third round of trade talks between China and the US ended in stalemate a US$100bn trade war is on the horizon. America has published a list of 1,300 Chinese products which it proposes to hit with a 25% tariff. China has it own list covering 106 categories. As the Chinese embassy in Washington DC said “As the Chinese saying goes, it is only polite to reciprocate.” See graph below from The Economist.

US list covers Chinese products worth – $US$46bn in 2017 – 9% of exports to USA.
Chinese list covers US products worth – US$50bn in 2017 – 38% of exports to China

Historians of trade have an advantage over those who study wars of the military kind. Each side is a trade dispute lays out in detail the products to be affected. That makes it easier to analyse their strategies. Trump’s blunt attack targeting of a particular industry – steel and aluminium – is to supposedly make the industry in the US stronger. China retaliated by placing tariffs on US$0.2bn-worth of iron and steel tubes, pipes and hollow profiles, and US$1.2bn-worth of aluminium waste.

The US face a trade-off between protecting their own industries with import tariffs at the same time as increasing the cost of goods for its consumers. There is also the likelihood of causing disruptions to the US economy by increasing the cost of intermediate goods (aircraft parts, robots, semiconductors) which ultimately leads to higher prices.

Good long-run deal for China

It seems that China has the dominant position for the following reasons:

  • China can stop purchasing US aircraft
  • Impose an embargo on US soybean products
  • Dump US Treasury Bills and other securities
  • Chinese companies could reduce demand for US business services
  • The government could persuade firms not to buy US products

China is indirectly one of America’s biggest employers. China could look to buy all it commercial aircraft from European consortium Airbus rather than Boeing. That move alone wold cost 179,000 US jobs. China controls key components in global supply and production networks

Initially a trade war would mean job losses for both countries but in the long-run with China looking to develop a more domestic led consumption model the export market becomes less significant – Project Syndicate. See video below:

Source:                                                                                                                                                        The Economist – Blow for Blow – April 7th 2018

Looming US China trade war – What can China do?

China’s share of global trade has surged since the 1990’s with both exports and imports increasing significantly – see graph below. Exports have been on a steep rise since 2001 with only a slight plateau with the GFC in 2008-9.

On Friday Donald Trump signed an order to impose tariffs on as much as $60 billion worth of Chinese imports. Trump wants to punish Beijing what he said is “the theft of American technology and Chinese pressure on U.S. companies to hand it over.” This deficit is significant – largest deficit of any country (see graph) – and Trump is blaming the US China trade imbalance for the loss of jobs in the US. This is an area that Trump focused his attention on in his campaign and now he is trying to fulfill the rhetoric.

Source: National Australia Bank

China has already warned that it will take “all necessary measures” to defend itself, raising the prospect of a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies. China has a few retaliatory measures it could use:

Soyabeans – US or Brazil?
The United States exported more than 30 million tons of soybeans — worth more than $10 billion — to China last year, over 57 percent of total U.S. exports of the popular legume. The soybean industry is heavily subsidised by the US government and this allows them to dump their produce on the Chinese market below the Chinese market price. China could look to Brazil for soy.

Boeing or Airbus?
Boeing make over 50% of commercial aircraft operating in China. Last November they signed an agreement to sell 300 planes to China worth $37 billion. This order supports approximately 150,000 jobs. In future China could look to the European plane manufacturer Airbus.

Sorghum
Earlier this year Trump imposed the following on Chinese products:

  • 20% tariff on the first 1.2m imported large residential washers in the first year, and a 50% tariff on machines above that number.
  • 30% tariff will be imposed on imported solar panels

In retaliation China has launched an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigation into imports of the grain from the US. China is the top buyer of US sorghum – US provided 4.76 million of CHina’s 5 million metric tonnes of sorghum imports – US1.1bn. China could retaliate after its investigation wraps up, expected next February.

Apple
China is a major market for the iPhone maker. Apple also depends on China’s workforce to make most of its products. As a result, China’s government has enormous leverage over the company and could, as it has in the past, target Apple for violating Chinese consumer rights.

General Motors
The Chinese market is imperative for GM – China has been the largest retailer for the last 6 years. 4 million cars were sold in China last year, up from 4.4% from the previous high a year earlier. Chinese automakers like Geely and BYD are competing for market share, though, and China could make it more difficult for both GM and Ford to operate on Chinese soil. In late 2016, China fined GM’s China joint venture $29 million for “price fixing,” or setting minimum prices for certain Cadillac, Chevy and Buick models.

Source: 5 Ways China May Try To Win A Trade War With The U.S.

Trump’s tax cuts likely to have limited impact on growth

Donald Trump has indicated that the US economy needs a big tax cut to stimulate some growth and aggregate demand –  C+I+G+(X-M). His rationale is that with consumers having greater income they will spend consume more (C) and businesses keeping more of their profits will invest more (I). He is even so confident that the tax cuts won’t put a dent in the overall tax revenue of the government. However economists are suggesting that the US economy is already growing as fast as it can and in order to improve its growth rate it needs to investment in productivity.

D Pull Inflation.jpegNevertheless, US tax cuts in the 1980’s under Ronald Reagan proved to be very effective in stimulating aggregate demand but the economic environment then was different to that of today. The 1980’s was an era of stagflation with the US experiencing 10% unemployment and inflation reaching 15%. Since the GFC in 2007 growth has been positive and unlike the 1980’s unemployment has been falling  – from 10% in Oct 2009 to 4.4% in April 20178. Tax cuts are all very well when you have high unemployment but with the rate falling to under 5% companies may find it difficult to respond to the greater demand for goods and services by taking on workers to increase supply. Tax cuts would then lead to an increase in inflationary pressure (see graph) which is turn would prompt the US Fed to increase interest rates.

ProductivityTrump’s plan would also increase the Federal deficit and borrowing from the government. This would put upward pressure on interest rates for the private sector which reduces the potential for further growth. As noted earlier the area that needs to be addressed is productivity, with a shift of the LRAS curve to the right – see graph.

NAFTA – Positives and Criticisms

NAFTA took effect in 1994 during the Clinton administration although he had to rely on support from the Republicans in the House – 60% of congressional Democrats voted against NAFTA. NAFTA got rid of tariffs on more than half of its members’ industrial products and by 2009 the deal eliminated tariffs on all industrial and agricultural goods.

Positives of NAFTA

  • American corporates believed the deal would cut labour costs and therefore increase efficiency and international competitiveness.
  • American consumer would also benefit from lower prices.
  • It would raise Mexico’s living standards especially in the north.
  • Trade between the USA and Mexico has risen 1.3% in 1994 to 2.5% in 2015
  • Mexico’s real income has risen – $10,000 in 1994 to $19000 in 2015
  • Less Mexicans are migrating to the USA – 500,000 a year to virtually nothing.

Criticisms
Mexican incomes are no better, as a share of those in the US, than they were in 1994.  Americans are slightly better off. NAFTA has caused significant job losses in the manufacturing industry.

However there are some unseen circumstances which have affected the deal.

1. The crisis of the Mexican Peso in 1994-95  – Zapatista rebels launched an uprising in Southern Mexico and the leading presidential candidate was assassinated. Worried about stability, foreign investment began to flee the country. It was eventually brought under control by a loan from the US government.

2. September 11th – this terrorist attack increased the cost of moving goods and people

3. The rapid growth on the Chinese economy which accounted for more than 13% of global exports and 25% of global manufacturing value-added. This puts a lot of pressure on global supply chains.

Have job losses been a result of NAFTA?

Brad DeLong (University of California) estimated that NAFTA could be blamed for only 0.1% of job losses in the US economy. This equates to fewer jobs than the US economy adds in a typical month. But to be realistic job losses would have increased without NAFTA for the following reasons:

1. the advances in technology would see labour being substituted
2. the strong US dollar would make US exports less competitive and thereby making overseas production attractive
3. Transport and communications improvements have made overseas production also attractive

Source: The Economist – 4th February 2017
Below is Paul Krugman on Bloomberg news. He talks of the poor performance of NAFTA for Mexico in that the country hasn’t developed as a whole. Some of the northern states have done well but southern Mexico is still very poor.

 

USA and China Trade – will the USA create more jobs?

USA China Trade Deficit.pngDonald Trump appointed Peter Navarro as the head of the newly created National Trade Council – it has been his anti-China stance outlined in his book ‘Death by China’ that has led to his surprise hiring by Trump. The book talks of the economic and military rise of China and the demise of the US manufacturing industry unable to compete with the Chinese sweatshops.

However a lot of the criticisms that Navarro has pointed at China have been quite valid.

1. Currency – the intervention on the foreign exchange market to keep their currency weak so improving the competitiveness of exports.
2. Intellectual property – forcing American firms to hand over intellectual property as a condition of access to the Chinese market.
3. Pollution – Chinese firms pollute the environment and have weak environmental controls on industry.
4. Working conditions – these are far worse than what is the law in most industrialized countries.
5. Export subsidies – government assistance help reduce the cost and ultimately the price of exports from China.

In 2006 he estimated that 41% of China’s competitive advantage over the USA in manufacturing came from unfair practices like those above and when China joined the WTO in 2001 the trade deficit with the USA ballooned at the same time millions of manufacturing jobs disappeared. The deficit though was funded by the Chinese and it was a consequence of the Chinese buying US Treasury bills – to put it simply the Chinese funded US consumers to buy Chinese products. Niall Ferguson refers to the relationship as Chimerica – the two are interdependent in that the USA borrows off the Chinese and then uses that money to buy Chinese products.

Navarro believes that with China adhering to global trade rules the deficit in manufacturing will decrease and manufacturing jobs will return to the US. However when jobs return they are not the same as they were in previous years as it is highly likely that productivity/technology has refined the production process. Research has also suggested that when the trade deficit with China increased (1998-2010) the loss of manufacturing jobs only rose slightly 2.5m to 2.7m. One wonders what Navarro will do in the coming months?

Sources: The Economist, The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson.

The 3 heads of Donald Trump

Below is a great cartoon clip from the FT with Gillian Tett talking about the 3 heads of Donald Trump. With some excellent cartoon graphics she goes through each of the following:

  1. The sensible serious Trump
  2. The love to shock Trump
  3. Sleezy, freewheeling, write my own rules, anti elitist Trump

One wonders which Trump will be more prevalent in his presidency? A lot of references to economics – animal spirits, NAFTA, tax cuts, corporate tax etc. As Gillian Tett points out ‘nobody really knows who he is’

Options for taking on Trump – the Japanese Model.

trump-abeA colleague alerted me to a Terrie Lloyd a New Zealand businessman in Japan who writes a weekly newsletter. With the election of Donald Trump his recent writing looked at bullies and ways in which you deal with them. Shinzo Abe, the Japanese prime minister, has been proactive in getting to know Trump and his team and how the two countries can work together.

Research on bullies

Lloyd suggests that there are generally three ways to deal with a bully.

Run – UK seem to be taking this option
Fight – Chinese will do this
Suffer and appease – Japan, having a bullying culture already, will go for appeasement

Abe will be meeting with Trump on 10th February for a second time in as many months and will want to convince him that Japan is one of the good guys and if he has to pick on someone in the area he should pick on China. For this to work Abe also needs to feed Trump’s ego publicly

Lloyd looks at the work of Dacher Keltner who has written about appeasement and related
human emotion and social practice. He looks at two general classes of appeasement.

1) reactive – the person provides appropriate responses after incidents and these responses are usually public displays of embarrassment and shame.
2) anticipatory appeasement where a person is proactive and engages in certain strategies to avoid conflict. Polite modesty and shyness are also considered anticipatory appeasement.

Japanese Model for dealing with bullies

With Japan taking the latter option, Keltner is suggesting that Abe must appease Trump with gifts of value and that they are seen publicly to assist Trumps power and reputation. Last month the Japanese gave access to US car manufacturers but will that be enough to keep Trump happy? At the meeting on 10th February Abe will propose a package that could generate 700,000 U.S. jobs and help create a $450-billion market. It includes the building of infrastructure projects such as high-speed trains in the northeastern United States, and the states of Texas and California, and renovating subway and train cars. It also includes cooperation in global infrastructure investment, joint development of robots and artificial intelligence, and cooperation in cybersecurity and space exploration, among others.

Toyota the car manufacturer has also been taking the appeasement option after the Trump administration criticised their building of a second car assembly plant in Mexico and also threatened to impose a 20% tariff on Japanese automobile and auto parts makers with plants in Mexico. Toyota quickly announced it would invest $10 billion in its U.S. operations over the next five years.

Abe has definitely been massaging the ego of Trump not only being the first international leader to visit Washington after his election but also telling Trump that he “hopes the United States will become a greater country through (your) leadership,” adding Japan wants to “fulfill our role as your ally.” It will be interesting to see what happens after their meeting on Friday 10th February.

Sources: Terrie Lloyd,  The Japan Times