Archive for the ‘Trade Policy’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Who Are My Heroes? Part One

Tuesday, April 21st, 2020

As you might expect my heroes are people who have played a role in trying to alert Americans to the effects to our economy of the decimation of American manufacturing and the dangers of outsourcing manufacturing to China and other countries.  These are real people and none are elected officials.

This month marks the 13th year of my journey to do what I could to save American manufacturing. In May 2007, I e published one of my periodic San Diego County Industry reports that I had been writing since 2003.  I titled it, “Can U.S. Manufacturing be Saved?” My report had grown from four pages to 13 pages, and I realized that what I was documenting about the loss of manufacturers in San Diego and California was going on all over the country.  That’s when I made the decision to start writing my first book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can, published in May 2009.  In the course of researching and writing my first book, my second edition of the same (2012), and my third book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity (2017), I have connected with many people who shared my concerns and were early advocates of saving American manufacturing.

My first set of heroes are those who either wrote books, articles, or newsletters that I came across researching my first book. When I was writing my reports, I was blaming the loss of manufacturing in California on the bad business climate, high taxes, and the cheap Chinese wages. These heroes expanded my knowledge greatly by showing that it was our primarily our national trade and tax policies, the trade cheating of China and other Asian countries, and corporate greed that was responsible for losing over five million manufacturing jobs between the year 2000 and 2009.  In alphabetical order, my heroes are:

Michael P. Collins is author of Saving American Manufacturing, Growth Strategies for Small and Midsize Manufacturers, published in 2006 and its companion handbook, The Growth Planning Handbook. Prior to becoming a writer, he was Vice President and General Manager of two divisions of Columbia Machine in Vancouver Washington. He is President of MPC Management, a consulting company that focuses exclusively on the problems and challenges of small and midsize manufacturers (SMMs) of industrial products and services. His book is written from the viewpoint of what manufacturers can do to save themselves and grow their business.  I arranged for him to come to San Diego to give a presentation to the Operations Roundtable of the American Electronic Association in 2011.

Lou Dobbs, is an American television commentator, radio show host, and the anchor of Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business Network, and author of Exporting America, Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs Overseas, published in 2004 as hard cover and 2006 as a paperback. In his book, he “takes aim at the corporate executives and Washington politicians who profit by exporting U.S. jobs overseas—and shows readers what they can do to save not only their own careers, but the American way of life.

Ralph Gomory, who is well-known for his mathematical research and his technical leadership. For twenty years he was responsible for IBM’s Research Division, and then for 18 years was the President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. He is the co-author with the late William J. Baumol of the book, Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests, published by MIT Press in 2001. After connecting by phone and email for years, it was nice to finally meet him at the Coalition for a Prosperous America trade conference in Washington, D. C. in 2018.

Richard McCormack, journalist and founder/publisher of Manufacturing & Technology News which he found in 1994. McCormack also served as the editor of the 2013 book on revitalizing manufacturing, ReMaking America. I read every issue of MT&N from July 2007 until it stopped publication at the end of 2016. He was also recognized as an American Made Hero by AmericanMadeHeroes.com for his newsletter “coverage of the profound financial and economic ramifications of the shift of industrial capability from the United States to Asian competitors.” He wrote “thousands of articles on outsourcing, industrial and technological competitiveness, government policies, and trends related to management, quality, technology and markets.”Mr. McCormack is currently Press Secretary and Program Manager, Office of Public Affairs, for the Department of Commerce.

Peter Kent Navarro is a Harvard Ph.D. economist and author of several books. I read his book The Coming China Wars, published in 2006, while I was researching my book. At that time, he was a professor of public policy at the University of California, Irvine. He currently serves in the Trump administration as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator. I first met Mr. Navarro when he was a professor at the University of California, San Diego and running for mayor in 1992. I also had the pleasure of seeing him when I attended the trade conference in 2018. I also read his book, Death by China, which he co-authored with Greg Autry, published in 2012.

Raymond Richman, Howard Richman (son), and Jesse Richman (grandson), authors of Trading Away our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and faulty Tax System Before It’s Too Late, published by Ideal Taxes Association in 2008. Raymond died in October 2019 at the age of 101. His tribute by Ideal Taxes states, he “authored four books, dozens of journal articles and hundreds of commentaries about economic development, tax policy and trade policy…Beginning with a commentary in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on September 14, 2003 (The Great Trade Debate), he became one of the first advocates of a policy of balanced trade, an alternative to the free trade vs. fair trade debate. His essential argument was that trade, free or not, benefits both countries if it is balanced.” I am sorry that I didn’t get to meet him before he died.

Roger Simmermaker, author of How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism, third edition published in 2008. He also writes Buy American Mention of the Week articles for his website and World New Daily. His book provides a guide to assist American’s who wish to purchase products made in America and discusses the importance of “Buying American” for the future economic independence & prosperity of America. He earned special recognition as an American Made Hero. After years of connecting to him by phone and email, it was a pleasure to also meet him at the same trade conference in 2018.

Alan Tonelson, a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation, and a columnist for the Foundation’s globalization website, Tradealert.org and a Research Associate at the George Washington University Center for International Science and Technology Policy. He is also the author of The Race to the Bottom, published in 2000. “He has written extensively on the trade deficit between the United States and other countries. He has also written on free trade, globalization and industrial decline. He argues that U.S. economic policy should aim for “preeminence” over other countries, just as, he believes, other countries’ economic policies seek their own national interests. He is critical of various forms of “globalism” and internationalism.”

When I was researching my first book, the U.S. Business and Industry Council was the only organization that had a written plan to save American Manufacturing.

I introduced my book as a speaker at the Del Mar Electronics Show in San Diego County, California on May 6, 2009, and had my book on display at my company’s booth at the show. One of the first persons to buy my book was Adrian Pelkus, President of contract manufacturer, A Squared Technologies.  He was also the informal leader of the steering group running the San Diego Inventors Forum.  He invited me to the next SDIF meeting which I attended, and then invited me to join the steering committee, which I did.  After reading my book and endorsing the purpose and ideas I presented in my book, the steering committee changed the focus of SDIF from helping inventors source their products in China to sourcing the manufacture of their products in the U.S.

The SDIF meetings have an informal curriculum of topics to cover in a year, and I have been giving an annual presentation on how to select the right manufacturing processes and vendors to make their products.  It has a pleasure to be able to help so many inventors and entrepreneurs source their products in America.

My connections to theses heroes led me to connections with many other people and organizations who became part of my second set of heroes after my book was published.  I will write about these people in My Heroes Part Two. 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economy, General, Jobs, Made in America, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Baldwin-Hawley Act Would Fix Overvalued U.S. Currency Problem

Tuesday, September 3rd, 2019

The Baldwin-Hawley Senate Bill, S.2357, titled the “Competitive Dollar for Jobs and Prosperity Act” was introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) on July, 31, 2019. The purpose of the Bill is “To establish a national goal and mechanism to achieve a trade-balancing exchange rate for the United States dollar, to impose a market access charge on certain purchases of United States assets, and for other purposes.”

This Bill is the legislative vehicle for the Market Access Charge (MAC) first proposed in a paper titled, “The Threat of U.S. Dollar Overvaluation: How to Calculate True Exchange Rate Misalignment & How to Fix It” released on July 11, 2017 by the Coalition for a Prosperous America and written by Michael Stumo (CEO), Jeff Ferry (Research Director) and Dr. John R. Hansen, a former Economic Advisor for the World Bank, CPA Advisory Board member, and founding  Editor of Americans Backing a Competitive Dollar (ABCD).

The paper explained the problem of the dollar overvaluation, showed how to accurately calculate the dollar’s misalignment against trading partner currencies, and proposed a solution to this serious threat to America’s future by means of a Market Access Charge (MAC). Dr. Hansen’s proposal was “to initiate the MAC with a 0.5% charge “on any purchase of U.S. dollar financial assets by a foreign entity or individual…As a one-time charge, the MAC will discourage would-be short-term investors, many of whom hold dollars or dollar-denominated securities overnight or even for minutes for the sake of a tiny profit.

The MAC rate would operate on a sliding scale, geared to the value of the trade deficit as a percentage of GDP. The MAC tax would rise if the trade deficit rose, and fall as the trade deficit falls… Most importantly, the MAC would have a substantial impact on the dollar’s value, moving it gradually and safely to a trade-balancing exchange rate and keeping it there, regardless of what other countries do. If the trade deficit goes to zero, so would the MAC.”

In an email to supporters on August 13, 2019, Dr. Hansen wrote, “A major milestone has just been reached in the battle to kill the U.S. trade deficit, stop the offshoring of U.S. industry, and put millions of Americans to work at well-paying jobs…The bill’s presentation to the Senate is indeed a major milestone – but only one of many that lie between where we are today and the bill’s ultimate passage. You support and advice would be most welcome as the process moves forward.”

The Bill’s summary cites the following ”Findings” by Congress:

 “(1) The strength, vitality, and stability of the United States economy and, more broadly, the effectiveness of the global trading system are critically dependent on an international monetary regime of exchange rates that respond appropriately to eliminate persistent trade surpluses or deficits by adjusting to changes in global trade and capital flows.

(2) In recent decades, the United States dollar has become persistently overvalued, in relation to its equilibrium price, because of excessive foreign capital inflows from both public and private sources.

(3) Countries with persistent trade surpluses maintain or benefit from undervalued currencies over a long period of time. As a result, those countries overproduce, underconsume, and excessively rely on consumers in countries with persistent trade deficits for growth. Those countries also export their unemployment and underemployment to countries with persistent trade deficits.

(4) Countries with persistent trade deficits, including the United States, absorb the overproduction of countries with persistent trade surpluses, thereby reducing domestic wages, manufacturing output and employment, economic growth, and innovation.

(5) The United States possesses fiscal and monetary tools to pursue national economic goals for employment, production, investment, income, price stability, and productivity. However, exchange rates that do not adjust to balance international trade can frustrate the achievement of those goals. The United States does not have a tool to manage exchange rates in the national interest.”

The Bill defines a “United States asset” as “(i) a security, stock, bond, note, swap, loan, or other financial instrument—

(I) the face value of which is denominated in United States dollars;

(II) that is registered or located in the United States; or

(III) that is an obligation of a United States person;

(ii) real property located in the United States;

(iii) any ownership interest in an entity that is a United States person;

(iv) intellectual property owned by a United States person; and

(v) any other asset class or transaction identified by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve as trading in sufficient volume to cause a risk of upward pressure on the exchange rate of the United States dollar.

It excludes:  “(i) a good being exported from the United States; or (ii) currency or noninterest bearing deposits.”

In the above mentioned paper, Dr. Hansen proposed that the MAC to be “a 0.5% charge on any purchase of U.S. dollar financial assets by a foreign entity or individual…As a one-time charge, the MAC will discourage would-be short-term investors, many of whom hold dollars or dollar-denominated securities overnight or even for minutes for the sake of a tiny profit. The MAC rate would operate on a sliding scale, geared to the value of the trade deficit as a percentage of GDP. The MAC tax would rise if the trade deficit rose, and fall as the trade deficit falls…”

The Balwin-Hawyley Bill stipulates that “On and after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, there shall be imposed a market access charge on each covered buyer in a covered transaction…The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall establish and adjust the rate of the market access charge at a rate that— (A) achieves a current account balance not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (B) maintains a current account balance thereafter.”

However, under the “ALTERNATE INITIAL MARKET ACCESS CHARGE” clause, “If, on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors has not established the initial rate for the market access charge, the initial market access charge shall be established at the rate of 50 basis points of the value of a covered transaction.”

The bill concludes with a description of how the Market Access Charge should be charged, collected, and reported to the U.S. Treasury.

At the time of the CPA paper cited above, the “The U.S. dollar was calculated at 25.5% overvalued compared to itsFundamental Equilibrium Exchange Rate (FEER). However, in an article titled “Why We Need Baldwin-Hawley Currency Reform Now,” by Jeff Ferry, CPA Chief Economist, published on August 21, 2019, he writes that the Coalition for a Prosperous America estimates “the dollar is overvalued today by 27 percent.” He points out that” that an overvalued currency makes it harder for a nation’s exports to compete in world markets and easier for foreign imports to take share in its domestic market.”

Mr. Ferry explains that “…overvaluation undermines our industrial base, makes our agricultural goods less competitive and tilts the income distribution in favor of the top 10 percent. Instead of an economy built on production and employment, we get growth built on consumption and debt. In fact, the only sector that favors overvaluation is the financial sector, because it helps Wall Street bankers sell stocks and bonds around the world. On Wall Street they like to call overvaluation the ‘strong dollar.’”

He concludes by saying that “Voltaire said the world is like a giant watch: it runs automatically according to an internal mechanism. If one of the settings is wrong, the watch won’t run properly. Our economy is a huge $21 trillion watch. If an exchange rate is set too high, a national economy runs down. If an economy doesn’t invest enough in its own industry, it becomes less competitive…On the international side, the US economy has been underproducing and overconsuming for some 40 years and adjustments are needed. Right now, Baldwin-Hawley is the most crucial adjustment Congress could enact.”

As a sales representative for American manufacturers, I can testify that America’s manufacturing industry is hurt by the overvalued dollar.  It hurts the ability for American companies to export products that are competitive in the world marketplace. It even hurts the ability for American manufacturers to compete against the low prices of Chinese imports in the domestic market.  I firmly endorse the passage of this critically needed bill by Congress in this session to reduce the U.S. dollar’s overvaluation, discourage unwanted investment in the dollar, and significantly reduce America’s trade deficit.

.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Currency Misalignment/Munipulation, Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

CPA Report Shows Higher China Tariffs Could Increase U.S. Jobs and GDP

Monday, August 19th, 2019

On July 22, 2019, the Coalition for a Prosperous America released an update to their study on the effects of increasing tariffs on all imported Chinese goods to 25% that had originally released in May. The study was conducted by CPA’s Chief Economist Jeff Ferry and Steven L. Byers, Ph.D. The Coalition for a Prosperous America is a non-profit, non-partisan organization working to eliminate the trade deficit with smart trade and tax policies to create jobs and prosperity.

According to the report, “The tariff revenue totals $547 billion over five years. If those funds are reinjected back into the economy each year, this additional stimulus to growth results in a $167 billion boost to GDP and 1.05 million additional jobs in 2024…The results of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) model show that tariffs will have a sustained, positive impact on the US economy, including jobs, output, and investment.”

The report states:  “The tariff would stimulate the US economy through two channels: first, the relocation of US-bound production from China to other nations would lead to a reduction in the average cost of imports because many alternative production locations ,such as those in Southeast Asia, today have lower costs of production than China; and secondly, because a portion of the production in China relocated to the US, would directly stimulate the US economy.”

In stark contrast, the opinions of professional economists are reflected in an article titled, “Trade Wars Are Not Good, or Easy to Win” in The Atlantic on August 5, 2019, staff writer Derek Thompson, wrote, ” President Donald Trump has stubbornly insisted on Chinese tariffs over the objections of his economic advisers—not to mention the near-universal outcry of the professional economic community. In a University of Chicago poll of several dozen international economists, zero disagreed with the statement that “the incidence of the latest round of US import tariffs is likely to fall primarily on American households.”

Why do the conclusions of the CPA research directors differ so greatly from the opinions of the economic community? The authors explained, “Our results differ remarkedly from other economic modeling efforts regarding tariffs…The differences result primarily from different assumptions about how businesses and consumers react to tariffs. Other models reflect a pro-free-trade bias and assume that (a) no production returns to the US as a result of tariffs (b )prices of US imports always rise when imports move from China to third countries and (c) US consumers react very negatively to higher prices, leading to educed sales and output in the US economy. A close study of the available empirical evidence shows these assumptions are unwarranted.”

The report states:  “Our model consisted of two parts:  a partial equilibrium model, which looked at how production in China for export to the US responded to the presence of a permanent across-the-board tariff, and a general-equilibrium model, based on the widely-used REMI  economic model to explore the effects of production shifts on the US economy over a five-year forecast period.”

The report takes into consideration China’s retaliation against the tariffs and China’s moving manufacturing to the U.S. or other countries. It shows that the tariffs will encourage production relocation out of Asia and generate significant reshoring of manufacturing to the US by American manufacturers who had established plants in China. This opinion concurs with the data collected by the Reshoring Initiative for several year showing that “the location decision for manufacturers is not just about cost: reliable supply, closeness to customers, political stability, and building customer/consumer brand awareness all matter!”

The original May report went into more detail about the benefit of reshoring, stating, “The US job gains from PATB-25-induced reshoring are disproportionately concentrated in the manufacturing sector, with 192,416 additional manufacturing jobs (27 percent of total jobs created by the tariff). This is because the vast majority of US imports from China are manufactured goods. By 2024, our model forecasts that $69 billion worth of annual production will have migrated from China to the United States. While US production costs in many industries remain higher than in China, that is not the whole story. Locating production in the US offers other advantages, including lower transportation costs, more logistical flexibility, and closer connectedness to consumer markets, distributors, and senior management. Relocating in the US also insulates companies against the uncertainty of potential future trade tensions. Some industries, such as apparel, have already seen reshoring due to these advantages. A permanent tariff would speed up the process.”

In a webinar to CPA members on August 1st, Ferry cited several examples of American companies reshoring production to the US; namely, Caterpillar, Stanley Black and Decker, Hasbro, Whirlpool, Optec, and West Elm.  The website of the Reshoring Initiative lists  nearly 3,000 companies that have reshored, and the list grows by the week.  

In an interview for The Epoch Times,  Ferry said: “As time goes by, people are accepting it because they’re seeing that tariffs are not provoking huge increases or any increases in consumer prices. They’re not disrupting our supply chains”

He also said “the goal of the U.S. government is to fix these problems and to restore prosperity to the United States, and he thinks tariffs have their role to play. If the trade deficit continues, and if we want to see certain manufacturing industries grow in the United States, I think we need to do more, and tariffs on all Chinese imports is a good solution…It’s a delicate and dangerous game [the Chinese regime is] going to have to play to pivot from being an economy that’s completely dependent on exports to being a more balanced economy, and it’s anybody’s guess whether they can pull it off.”

I’m betting that the conclusions reached by CPA would prove true if President Trump did impose 25% tariffs on all imports from China because of the strong evidence of the benefit of reshoring to the US economy.  According to the Reshoring Initiative, data from the manufacturing employment low of January 20190 through 2018, 749,000 jobs have been brought back to the US from offshore. In addition, manufacturing jobs pay higher than service and retail jobs, so tax revenue will increase from more people having higher paying jobs.  Another benefit would be that as we reduce our imports, our trade deficit would go down. However, the best benefit is that as we resume making the products and systems needed to defend our country in the US, we will protect our national security.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

The High Cost of Trade Deficits

Tuesday, April 9th, 2019 
 
 

Free trade has resulted in enormous trade deficits in goods for the United States for over 40 years. Our last year of a positive trade balance was 1975. At best, free trade has benefited large, multinational global corporations that have manufacturing facilities located in other countries. At its worst, it is the primary source of our trade deficit and loss of good paying manufacturing jobs.

Even with the tremendous resources we have, what was once the world’s largest manufacturer of products has accumulated $14.379 trillion worth of deficits in goods for all countries since 1991.

A fact sheet generated by the Coalition for a Prosperous America for 2018 show ten countries account for 97% of our trade deficit: China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, Ireland, Vietnam, Italy, India, South Korea, and Malaysia. Our trade deficit with China alone was $419 billion, representing 47.9% of our trade deficit.  Since 1991, we have accumulated over $9.144 trillion worth of trade deficits with just the top four countries. If we had fair trade, we would not have these constant trade deficits.  The drastic effect China has had on our trade deficit is demonstrated by the fact that in 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization, we had a total $412 billion deficit in goods, but in 2018, we had a $879 billion deficit in goods. 

 

For every $1 billion of trade deficits in goods, it’s been estimated that 6,000 – 7,000 jobs are lost, at about $80,000/job. This means that 8 – 10 million more Americans willing to work could have a comfortable middle-class job in America. Instead, we lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs from the year 2000 to 2010. 

 

In terms of purchasing power, workers’ wages in the U.S. have been stagnant since the 1970s. The significant collapse in the income of average Americans can be attributed to the vast decline of jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector. This is the reason average U.S. wages have fallen over time, especially since 2001. From 2001 – 2013, the average U.S. wages fell by 3.5%. In contrast, as Chinese workers flocked to cities for manufacturing jobs, wages have grown substantially, averaging an 11 percent increase per year from 2001 to 2015. 

 

According to the Pew Research Center, 61% of American households were part of the middle class in 1971, but by 2015, only 50% of Americans were part of the middle class. “In 2002, China’s middle class was only four percent of its population. A decade later, this number had climbed to 31 percent, constituting over 420 million people. In contrast, in 1999, only 2% of the Chinese population was a part of the middle class, but by 2013, 39% of the Chinese population was in the middle class.

 

Since China joined the World Trade Organization, the bi-partisan, 12 member U. S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) has been required to submit annual reports to Congress. These reports document China’s non-compliance with the WTO and the effect it has on the U. S. economy.

For example, the 2007 report included a case study of the local impact of trade with China on North Carolina. The USCC report stated “the accelerating decline in North Carolina’s manufacturing employment is due in large measure to increasing competition from imports mostly from China . . . The combination of China’s 2001 admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which gave it quota-free access to U.S. markets for its textile and clothing exports, and the subsequent U.S. grant of Most-Favored (Trading) Nation status that lowered most tariffs on Chinese imports, battered North Carolina’s textile and apparel industries, and they never recovered.”

Because a greater proportion of North Carolina’s workforce had manufacturing jobs than any other state, North Carolina’s workforce was more vulnerable to competition from imports than the workforces of other states. North Carolina’s manufacturing economy was made even more vulnerable by its concentration in the import-sensitive sectors of textiles, apparel, and furniture. North Carolina is one of the southeast states that had a large number of textile companies, and as a result, North Carolina has been the most impacted state in the nation by layoffs due to trade. Between 2004 and 2006, almost 39,000 North Carolina workers were certified by the Trade Adjustment Assistance program as having lost jobs to trade, more than 10 percent of the U.S. total of 387,755. 

According to the Social Science Research Institute (SSRI) of Duke University in North Carolina, there were 2,153 textile and apparel plants in North Carolina employing 233,715 people in 1996. By 2006, the apparel industry had experienced a 70% decline in jobs and 55% loss of plants. The textile industry by comparison had only lost 63% of jobs and 32% of plants from 1996 to 2006. 

The loss of these well-paid manufacturing jobs in North Carolina’s textile industry may have resulted in families losing their homes and/or being forced to relocate to other areas of the country to find jobs. Taking lower paying jobs in their own communities may have resulted in families no longer being in the middle-class income range. And, those who have not been able to find any work or only part-time work may have even dropped down to the poverty level.  It is not just people losing jobs and not being able to find other employment that pays as well as their former jobs, “hundreds of small towns throughout North Carolina impacted by plant closures are dying.”

Remember that it takes taxes paid by three to four working Americans to pay for the unemployment benefits of a non-working American. The cheaper China price of goods that we import instead of producing here in the U. S. results in a cost to society as a whole. We need to ask ourselves:  Is the China price worth the cost to society?  I say a resounding NO! We need to stop shooting ourselves in the feet. We need to stop benefitting the one percent of large multinational corporations to the detriment of the 99% percent of smaller American companies.

China, Germany, Japan, and many other countries have built their currency value around making certain all of their countrymen have a good job, even if that destroys America’s work force. As a result, these countries have maintained constant trade surpluses with the U. S. for many years, which would not have happened if we had fair trade.

 

It is impossible for the U.S.to remain competitive if our currency is not fairly valued. In order to move manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., we need to move our currency value down by at least 27% because the currency of Germany and Japan are undervalued by about that same amount.  China has rigged its currency between 15%-40% below its fair value since joining the WTO, and this gives a subsidy to their imports to the U.S. and imposes a direct cost on U.S. exports to China.

Devaluing our currency would allow many more products that we import from overseas to be made here. Unfair trade practices of currency manipulation, government subsidies, product dumping, and state-owned enterprises have allowed China to buy our raw materials and our low-cost energy to become the largest producer in the world of paper, aluminum, and steel even though labor costs are small compared to the cost of raw materials, energy, and transportation.

We need to focus on eliminating our trade deficits and achieving balanced, reciprocal trade in all future trade agreements. The last thing we need is to increase our trade deficit more than it already is.

 

In addition, we need to continue on the path of returning more manufacturing to America by reforming our tax policies and making regulations less onerous to manufacturers, without compromising our commitment to protect our environment. This is the only way that we will be able to simultaneously reduce our trade deficit and the national debt.

Tags:,
Posted in Currency Misalignment/Munipulation, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Tariffs Benefit the American Manufacturing Industry

Wednesday, February 13th, 2019

Most people are unaware that for over 150 years, the American government protected the development and growth of its manufacturing industry with high tariffs, ranging from a low of 5% to as high as 50% in some cases. The first tariffs were imposed by the Tariff Act of 1789, whose purpose was to raise money for the new federal government, slash Revolutionary War debt and protect early-stage American industries from foreign imports.

Prior to achieving its independence, Americans were dependent on goods imported from England, France, and Holland, so it was critical to develop their own manufacturing base to maintain independence as a country in the event of future wars.

These protectionist policies enabled its fledgling manufacturing industries to grow until the United States became the preeminent industrial nation in the 20th century.  American manufacturing dominated the globe for over 70 years.

After World War II, the U.S. switched from protectionism to free trade in order to rebuild the economies of Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan and bind the economies of the non-Communist world to the United States for geopolitical reasons.

To accomplish these objectives, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated during the UN Conference on Trade and Employment, reflecting the failure of negotiating governments to create a proposed International Trade Organization. Originally signed by 23 countries at Geneva in 1947, GATT became the most effective instrument in the massive expansion of world trade in the second half of the 20th Century.

GATT’s most important principle was trade without discrimination, in which member nations opened their markets equally to one another. Once a country and one of its trading partners agreed to reduce a tariff, that tariff cut was automatically extended to all GATT members. GATT also established uniform customs regulations and sought to eliminate import quotas.

By the 1970s, Japan’s economy was flourishing to the point that Japan became a major exporter to the U. S. for consumer electronic goods such as cameras, stereos, radios, and TVs. During the 1980s, Japan further expanded its U. S. market share with automobiles and machine tools for the manufacturing industry, such as mills, lathes, and turret presses.

Germany focused on high-end products in all of the same markets as the Japanese, so that American products faced stiff competition at the low end and high end.

Manufacturing employment in the U. S. reached a peak of 19.5 million in 1979, and slid down to 17.3 million by 1993 from the effects of job losses from increased imports from Japan, Germany, and other countries because of free trade policies and lower tariffs.

By 1995, when the World Trade Organization replaced GATT, 125 nations had signed its agreements, governing 90 percent of world trade.

Another major blow to the American manufacturing industry took place when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was negotiated under President Bill Clinton and went into effect in January 1994. The agreement was supposed to reduce market barriers to trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico to reduce the cost of goods, increase our surplus trade balance with Mexico, reduce our trade deficit with Canada, and create 170,000 jobs a year. Twenty years later, the fallacy of these supposed benefits is well documented.

According to the report “NAFTA at 20” released in 2014 by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, “More than 845,000 specific U.S. workers have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as having lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries.”

In 1994, GATT was updated to include new obligations upon its signatories. One of the most significant changes was the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO.) The 75 existing GATT members and the European Community became the founding members of the WTO on January 1, 1995. The other 52 GATT members rejoined the WTO in the following two years, the last being Congo in 1997. Since the founding of the WTO, a number of non-GATT members have joined, and there are now 157 members.

The loss of jobs accelerated after President Clinton granted Most Favored Nation status to China in the year 2000, and China was able to join the WTO. As a result, the U. S. lost 5.9 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2010, and manufacturing employment dropped from 17.3 million down to 11.4 million in depth of recession in February 2010. In addition, an estimated 57,000 manufacturing firms closed.

On January 31, 2017, the Economic Policy Institute released a report, “Growth in U.S.–China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015 cost 3.4 million jobs,” written by Robert Scott.

Scott stated, “Due to the trade deficit with China, 3.4 million jobs were lost between 2001 and 2015, including 1.3 million jobs lost since the first year of the Great Recession in 2008. Nearly three-fourths (74.3 percent) of the jobs lost between 2001 and 2015 were in manufacturing (2.6 million manufacturing jobs displaced).”

Why were so many jobs lost? A large percentage of the people who lost jobs were in industries decimated by Chinese product dumping and below market pricing; i.e., textiles, furniture, tires, sporting goods, and garments. In addition, American manufacturers chose to outsource manufacturing offshore as the U.S. Department of Commerce data shows that “U.S. multinational corporations… cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million.”

Thankfully, manufacturing employment increased to 12.8 million by December 2018 as shown by the chart below. This was the result of a very slowly improving economy, reshoring (returning manufacturing to America), and increased Foreign Direct Investment (foreign manufacturers setting up plants in the U.S.) Notice that it took six years to increase by 904,000 under the Obama Administration, and it’s only taken two years to increase by another 441,000 jobs under the Trump Administration. While an increase of 1.4 million jobs is good news, at this rate, it would take about 30 years to recoup the 5.8 million jobs we lost from 2000 to 2010.

 

We need to accelerate the growth of manufacturing jobs, and that is what the tariffs imposed by President Trump are designed to do.  In the only few short months since the tariffs went into effect, I’ve seen the following headlines about job growth in the past week:

“U.S. Steel Corp. Restarts Texas Plant That Closed in 2016,”  IndustryWeek, February 5, 2019

“Tariffs Helping US Manufacturers Add Jobs, Says Group,” IndustryWeek, February 7, 2019

“US Steel Resumes Construction on Idled Facility,” IEN, February 11, 2019

On December 04, 2018, the article “Contrary to popular belief, Trump’s tariffs are working” by Jeff Ferry, Research Director for the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), stated,  “The tariffs have contributed to this growth directly and indirectly. Directly, we’ve catalogued some 11,000 US jobs that are being created by companies in the four tariffed industries, and that’s not including any of the Section 301 industries. Since that 11,000 tally in August, more investments and jobs have been announced, like the massive $1.5 billion steel plant to be built by Steel Dynamics, which will create some 600 new jobs in the southwest. Solar Power World lists a dozen solar companies now investing in US production of solar modules.”

“At CPA, we built an economic model looking at the effects of the tariffs on the US economy from 2018 through 2021. We found that the tariffs boosted US economic growth, adding $9 billion to GDP this year. Further, our growing economy leads to growing US imports each year. In other words, by boosting our own economic growth, we buy more goods from our trading partners, not less.”

If we want to protect our national security and maintain our national leadership in the 21st Century, we cannot continue down the path of increasing trade deficits and increasing national debt by allowing countries with predatory trade policies to destroy the American manufacturing industry.  I support the new path the Trump Administration is forging by developing and implementing a national strategy to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth, and strong domestic supply chains.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Navarro Warns of Fragility of U.S. Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base

Tuesday, December 4th, 2018

If you don’t watch CSpan, you missed an important speech by Dr. Peter Navarro, White House National Trade Council and Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director, on November 9th at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D. C.

Dr. Navarro spoke about the manufacturing and defense industrial base and how U.S. economic strength is an element of national security and how it fits with the Trump strategy in dealing with the broader economic and defense issues. Dr. Navarro said that in December 2017, as part of formulating a national security strategy, President Trump introduced the maxim that “economic security is national security.”

He explained that everything that the Trump administration has done is part of this strategy, such as tax cuts, deregulation to reduce the onerous regulations put in place by the Obama Administration, ending the war on coal, and the steel and aluminum tariffs. These are all part of supply side economics to help companies be more competitive and grow in a non-inflationary way.

He commented that instead of the “doom and gloom” of economists, there has been “a flood of new investment and capital expenditures” by steel and aluminum companies, and “the waivers granted by the Department of Transportation have gone down from a flood to a trickle.”

He said, “In my estimation, we have the finest U. S. Trade Representative in U. S. history.  Doing the Section 301 investigation was a power that lay dormant for decades. This is the way we are able to now protect our technology from Chinese predation.  It has been tremendously successful in doing that.”

He outlined how Trump’s tough trade policy, backed up by tough action, has led to the renegotiation of two out of the three main trade deals – NAFTA, the Korea deal, and the WTO.  With regard to NAFTA, now called the USMCA, he said, “The whole essence is a provision to bring domestic content back onshore and share the fruits of the assembly and supply chain with our neighbors to the south and to the north. This is a deal which will strengthen all three countries and strengthen the defense industrial base.”

He commented that President Trump is a man who thinks every day about how to put more American men and women back to work, particularly those who work with their hands. He discussed how during his time on President Trump’s campaign trail, a report came out stating that one out of four people were out of the workforce, the so-called “discouraged workers” – men and women who had given up looking for work. He said, “We were told that the jobs for people who work with their hands were never coming back. Now, we have historically low unemployment., and rising employment among Blacks, Hispanics, and woman. Over a million people are back in the workforce through a fundamental restructuring of the manufacturing and industrial base.  It isn’t just the quantity of jobs; it’s the quality of jobs.”

He said, “I was blessed to be part of a large team that restructured the sale of arms to our allies and partners.  From an economic security point of view, it means more jobs here, good jobs with higher wages.  When you reactivate a supply chain, you activate 400 suppliers in that supply chain in 41 states. It helps expand production lines. If you are able to sell arms to allies and partners, it makes that country stronger.”

He then turned his attention to the findings of the “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States Report” that was prepared by the Interagency Task Force in Fulfillment of President Trump’s Executive Order 13806.

He said that an Interagency Task Force, led by DoD, created sixteen working groups with over 300 subject matter experts from across the federal government. Nine working groups focused on traditional industrial sectors, and seven working groups assessed enabling cross-cutting capabilities, such as machine tools. The report revealed that there are almost 300 gaps and vulnerabilities in America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base.  The Executive Summary states, “Currently, the industrial base faces an unprecedented set of challenges: sequestration and uncertainty of government spending; the decline of critical markets and suppliers; unintended consequences of U.S. Government acquisition behavior; aggressive industrial policies of competitor nations; and the loss of vital skills in the domestic workforce.”

Dr. Navarro asked the rhetorical questions, “How did we get to the place where the greatest military power in the world faces serious gaps, close to 300 gaps, in the defense industrial base?…What happens when you randomly cut off dollars from the defense department?

He explained, “There are five macro forces that bear down on the defense industrial base:

  1. Budgets and sequestration
  2. Decline of American manufacturing capability and capacity
  3. S. government procurement practices
  4. Industrial policies of competitor nations
  5. Decline of U.S. STEM and trade skills

He commented that the decline of the manufacturing base itself was due to the forces of globalization as well as the industrial policies and unfair trade practices of our economic competitors, our so-called allies, and our strategic rivals, particularly China.  He said, “This report called out China for its policies of economic aggression…China is engaged in unfair trade practices and currency manipulation.  From 2003 to 2014, it was documented that China was the worse currency manipulator in the world…so that we are running up annual trade deficits of half a billion dollars.”

He showed a chart, titled “China’s Categories of Economic Aggression.”  He said, “This chart is founded on the underlying assumption that China is a non-market economy, a state-directed economy. They use international rules when they benefit them and violate them when it’s to their benefit.”  He outlined` six economic strategies that China uses:

  • Protect their home markets from competition and imports
  • Protect China’s share of global markets
  • Secure and control core natural resources globally
  • Dominate traditional manufacturing industries
  • Acquire key technologies and Intellectual Property from other countries and the U. S.
  • Capture emerging industries of the future that will drive future growth and advancement in defense industries.

He said, “There are over 50 ways that China engages in these acts, policies and practices s to achieve these strategies…, if you could negotiate to eliminate 25 of these tactics, you would still have 25 that would hurt us.”

This point is very relevant to the preliminary agreement that President Trump negotiated with Chinese President Xi Xinping at the G20 this past weekend. The agreement included a 90-day delay to the planned January increase in US Section 301 tariffs—which were set to rise from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200B of Chinese imports.

Judging from past history of negotiations with China, it is unlikely that China will keep their part of the bargain of this latest agreement. It will probably unravel before the 90 days are up. Dr. Navarro alluded to the problem of negotiating with China when he said, “The biggest problem is the trust issues. One of the things about working in the White House is that you can ask for stuff. I asked them to give me all the instances where China has agreed to something and then not kept their promise. I got back like five pages of stuff going back 30 years. It’s frightening…”

Space does not permit me to cover his discussion of the tactics China uses. Through research, I discovered that Dr, Navarro had used this same chart when he spoke to the Hudson Institute on Thursday, June 28, 2018, an image of which can be viewed at this link..  It looks to me that he created the chart to be a visual summary of key points made in his report, “How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World,” which he submitted to President Trump in June 2018.

His comments included mention that the globalization of the supply chain has resulted in having only a single source for some critical product or components. For example, he mentioned that there is only one company that can make turrets for tanks. He said, “The F-34 has a seven-tier supply chain, and you need to make sure that production lines for parts can continue and expand if there is a surge of demand…If you have foreign sources for products and components, that is a big problem, especially if China is the source.”

He also briefly commented on the problem of the decline of U. S. STEM and trade skills saying that if you have labor shortages because you don’t have enough skilled labor, that is a problem.

He concluded by saying, “The day that Pat Shanahan turned in the report, DoD and other agencies of government were already moving forward to fill these gaps and vulnerabilities. The day that the report was handed in, we signed two Defense Protection Act Title III orders that would help a couple of small companies in that fragile supply chain…We have initiatives for the national defense stock pile program to help with critical material issues. There is an effort to modernize the organic industrial base…This administration is working tirelessly, tirelessly, to fix those gaps and vulnerabilities. This effort really is the purest expression of the principle of economic security is national security.  We will strengthen America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base, and in the process, we will create jobs and build factories and better protect our homeland…”

I’ve made the point repeatedly that we can’t protect our national security or even defend our country without a strong manufacturing base. After writing about how and why we needed to save and now rebuild our manufacturing industry by writing three books and over 300 articles since 2009, it is gratifying to me that action is finally being taken to address this situation the Trump Administration.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economy, National security, Trade Policy | No Comments »

How tariffs Could Rebalance U.S. trade relations with China

Tuesday, November 27th, 2018

President Trump has been accused by many of starting a trade war. Are we really in a trade war and did the U. S. start it?  Economist Ian Fletcher recently stated “I define trade war as a cycle of tariff and retaliation where the retaliations are driven not by rational desire to balance trade or achieve the benefits of a tariff-protected economy, but simply by one-upping the other side’s last cycle of retaliation…I believe it is absolutely crucial to make the distinction between trade war, and the ongoing trade conflicts which have always been going on even under nominally free-trade circumstances, clear to the public.  If China imposing tariffs on us for years hasn’t been “trade war,” why is it suddenly “trade war” now that we’re doing the exact same thing?”

Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, recently stated, “China started the trade war in 1994 with currency devaluation and state-directed capitalism. Then they got better at it.”

Mr. Stumo is right because for the past 24 years, the U. S. has experienced an ever-increasing trade deficit with China, transferring America’s wealth to China and losing nearly six million manufacturing jobs. In 1994, our trade deficit with China was $29.5 billion, and by 2004, it had doubled to $162.3 billion. After a slight dip in 2009 during the depths of the Great Recession, the trade deficit grew to $375 billion in 2017.

Previous administrations did nothing to fight against the trade war that China started.  In fact, they aided China’s efforts to win the trade war starting when China was granted “Most Favored Nation” status by Present Clinton in 2000.

The January 31, 2017 report, “Growth in U.S.–China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015 cost 3.4 million jobs,” written by Robert Scott, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Research at the Economic Policy Institute, states that when China entered into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, “it was supposed to bring it into compliance with an enforceable, rules-based regime that would require China to open its markets to imports from the United States and other nations by reducing Chinese tariffs and addressing nontariff barriers to trade.”

However, Scott wrote, “China both subsidizes and dumps massive quantities of exports. Specifically, it blocks imports, pirates software and technology from foreign producers, manipulates its currency, invests in massive amounts of excess production capacity in a range of basic industries, often through state owned enterprises (SOEs) …China has also engaged in extensive and sustained currency manipulation over the past two decades, resulting in persistent currency misalignments.”

Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) expanded on Chinese mercantilist policies in his report, “Enough is Enough:  Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism (February 2012). He wrote, “China’s strategy is to win in virtually all industries, especially advanced technology products and services… China’s policies represent a departure from traditional competition and international trade norms. Autarky [a policy of national self-sufficiency], not trade, defines China’s goal. As such China’s economic strategy consists of two main objectives: 1) develop and support all industries that can expand exports, especially higher value-added ones, and reduce imports; 2) and do this in a way that ensures that Chinese-owned firms win.”

In a speech to the Hudson Institute on October 4, 2018, Vice President Mike Pence stated, “Over the past 17 years, China’s GDP has grown 9-fold…And the Chinese Communist Party has also used an arsenal of policies inconsistent with free and fair trade, including tariffs, quotas, currency manipulation, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and industrial subsidies doled out like candy, to name a few. These policies have built Beijing’s manufacturing base, at the expense of its competitors – especially America.

He commented, “Yet previous administrations all but ignored China’s actions – and in many cases, they abetted them. But those days are over. Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States of America has been defending our interests with renewed American strength…we’re also implementing tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods, with the highest tariffs specifically targeting the advanced industries that Beijing is trying to capture and control. And the President has also made clear that we’ll levy even more tariffs, with the possibility of substantially more than doubling that number, unless a fair and reciprocal deal is made.”

Most people are unaware that America staunchly protected its domestic industries with tariffs on imports until the end of WWII.  On August 16, 2018, MarketWatch published an article by Jeffrey Bartash, in which he stated, “One of the very first bills new President George Washington signed, for instance, was the Tariff Act of 1789. He inked the bill on July 4 of that year. The tariff of 1789 was designed to raise money for the new federal government, slash Revolutionary War debt and protect early-stage American industries from foreign competition.

Most goods entering the U.S. were subjected to a 5% tariff, though in a few cases the rates ranged as high as 50%. It was the first of many tariffs that Congress passed over a century and a half. They generated the vast majority of federal revenue until the U.S. adopted an income tax in 1913. In some years tariffs funded as much as 95% of the government’s annual budget.”

Why did we allow the Chinese to win the trade war for so long?  Because our economic “experts” and advisers to past administrations naively thought that free trade and free markets would have a transformative effect on China’s totalitarian form of government, gradually democratizing it.

The question is whether or not the tariffs will help rebalance U. S. trade with China.  In the article posted on the trade blog of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) on July 30, 2018, CPA Research Director Jeff Ferry examines “China’s heavy dependence on – or overexposure to – the US for their trade surplus and their exports. He wrote, “But the fundamental message of all the data is that the US is not only the world’s number one consumer and importer, but China’s number one customer. That makes China more dependent on us than we are on them.”

In other words, China would be hurt more by the tariffs reducing their imports to the U. S. than the U. S. would be hurt by having to pay more for imports. Over time, the tariffs would rebalance our trade with China as imports of Chinese goods are reduced, which would reduce our deficit with China.

In contrast to numerous articles projecting job losses from the tariffs, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) published a press release on August 17, 2018, that provided “details of its new ‘Tariff Job Creation Tracker’ that tallied US manufacturing jobs gained in the wake of recent tariff actions. CPA found 11,100 jobs announced or planned in four major sectors affected by tariffs. These results have now prompted a corresponding study of job losses related to the tariffs. To date, CPA has identified only 514 jobs lost specifically due to tariffs—which means that job gains exceed job losses by a 20:1 ratio.”

On November 27, 2018, CPA released a press release: “Steel Tariffs Creating Jobs, Boosting GDP” which stated:  “This ground-breaking economics study by the CPA Economics team shows that the steel tariffs are benefiting the US economy,” said CPA Chairman Dan DiMicco. “The same is true for other tariffs implemented this year. If we continue to follow rational trade policies, the benefits will be felt by every worker, farmer, and shareholder in the US.”

CPA Research Director Jeff Ferry said, “The performance of the US economy since the steel tariff was implemented in March has been outstanding, with over a million more jobs in the US economy today than in March, and GDP growth roughly half a point higher than economists had predicted.”

Already the tariffs are resulting in an expansion of U. S. steels jobs and investment by U. S. steel companies in their facilities. On August 17, 2018  Manufacturing News & Insight featured this article “US Steel to Invest $750M in Gary  Works Plant in Indiana” stating, ”U.S. Steel plans to spend at least $750 million to upgrade a century-old steel mill along northwestern Indiana’s Lake Michigan shoreline…Company and government officials said Thursday that the project will help preserve Gary Works’ nearly 3,900 steelworker jobs, and could help ensure the 112-year-old mill lasts another century. The investment accounts for more than a third of U.S. Steel’s $2 billion asset revitalization program…”

Manufacturing is the foundation of the U.S. economy and our country’s large middle class. Losing the critical mass of our manufacturing base would result in the loss of the large portion of our middle class that depends on manufacturing jobs. American manufacturers supply the military with essentials including tanks, fighter jets, submarines, and other high-tech equipment. We can’t manufacture these goods without domestic steel and aluminum.  If we lose the domestic capacity to produce steel and aluminum, our national defense would be in danger, and it would be impossible to maintain our country’s position as the superpower of the free world. Let’s give them time to work to rebuild our U. S. steel and aluminum industries.  Hopefully, the tariffs will inspire China to open up their markets to U. S. goods to create to a freer, more open trade relationship between our two countries.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Jobs, National security, Trade Policy | No Comments »

CPA’s Fair Trade Message Finds Favor in Capitol Hill Meetings

Thursday, May 31st, 2018

The week of March 12th, I was one of over 60 members of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) who attended our annual conference/fly-in.  In a two-day blitz, members visited more than 120 House and Senate offices in Washington, D. C. to sound the alarm: “America’s massive, growing trade deficit is killing jobs, harming communities, and stifling economic growth.”

Our conference began Monday afternoon with remarks by CPA Chairman Dan DiMicco touting Present Trump’s announcement of imposing Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum as a long-overdue measure to safeguard our domestic steel and aluminum mills.  He emphasized that CPA also supports all allowable trade enforcement remedies, such as the Section 201 Tariffs on imported solar panels and clothes washers and the Section 301 Investigation into Chinese intellectual property theft.

CEO Michel Stumo highlighted the new flyers covering issues that we were to discuss with Congressional Representatives and their staff.  Research Director Jeff Ferry introduced the new Job Quality Index he has created, which will differentiate high-paying jobs from low-paying jobs in the monthly job data.

We urged Representatives to support legislation that would eliminate the nation’s trade deficit, address an overvalued dollar, provide stronger trade enforcement, and tackle troubling trade issues with China.

In our meetings, we provided Representatives and their staffs with legislative solutions aimed at eliminating America’s trade deficit, which grew to $566 billion last year. A fact sheet produced by CPA highlighted that no other country has run 42 years of consecutive trade deficits, which has been an average 2.99% drag on our Gross Domestic Product. The flyer offered key reasons why “free” and “fair” trade can result in balanced trade—instead of the job loss that has plagued America’s productive sectors for the past 15 years.

Another fact sheet, showed that ten countries account for 97% of our trade deficit, namely China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, Ireland, Vietnam, Italy, India, South Korea, and Malaysia. Our deficit with China alone jumped from a $337 billion deficit or 38% in 2016 to a $375 billion deficit or 47% in 2017.

We discussed how the he Tax Cuts for Jobs Act narrowed, but did not eliminate, the tax benefit for moving operations overseas, and presented information on how the tax system could be improved with Sales Factor Apportionment, based, which is “a destination of sales system used by many states that would tax corporate income in proportion to a companies’ sales in the U.S. regardless of either domicile or location of operations.”  For example, a multinational corporation that still does 40% of its business in the U.S. would be taxed on the profits of that 40% of its worldwide sales.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was also another topic of discussion during our visits. CPA supports “mending it or ending it” as CPA has long argued that NAFTA has hurt U.S. manufacturing, cost jobs, and incentivized investment in Mexico rather than the U.S. We explained the provisions that must be included in a renegotiated NAFTA to help America’s manufacturers, such as reinstating country of original labeling for beef and pork, tightening country of origin rules to require higher North American content, requiring periodic reviews, and a mechanism for countries to withdraw, if necessary.

During our Hill meetings, we emphasized the importance to our national security of a vibrant domestic steel and aluminum industry. I mentioned that we outproduced Germany and Japan in World War II, but we would not be able to do so in future wars if we let our domestic steel and aluminum industries be further decimated. We expressed our support for President Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum import, especially since CPA has many members in the steel industry.

In addition, we discussed the problem of the overvalued U. S. dollar. And presented the flyer that showed as of May 2017, the U. S. dollar was overvalued by 25.5%, whereas the currencies of Japan and Germany were undervalued by nearly as much, with South Korea not far behind at about 15% of undervaluation.  I told them that CPA has a new Advisory Board member, Dr. John R. Hansen, who is a 30-year veteran of the World Bank. He has proposed a solution to address this problem that “pushes American wages down, increases the trade deficit, disrupts capital markets, and hooks consumers on debt.” He proposed that “Congress should provide the Federal Reserve the responsibility to maintain the dollar at a current account balancing equilibrium price. New legislation should provide the Fed with a new tool to moderate the dollar exchange rate called a market access charge (MAC).” He projects that the MAC would balance trade in five years and that balance would be maintained in the future.

In addition to our congressional visits, CPA hosted a bipartisan group of Representatives to meet with our members, including Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY-23), Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL-23), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-05), and Rep. Robert Pittinger (R-NC-09). Last fall, Representatives Brooks and Lipinski introduced House Congressional Resolution 37 for Congress to set a national goal to eliminate the trade deficit.  It is only one sentence long: “Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress and the President should prioritize the reduction and elimination, over a reasonable period of time, of the overall trade deficit of the United States.”

Rep. Pittinger is co-sponsor of HR 4311, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017, which would expand and update the review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) to meet new national security risks. As we distributed this flyer to Congressional Members, we expressed our support for the order President Trump signed to prohibit the acquisition of Qualcomm by Broadcom.  When I met with Congressman Duncan Hunter, he said he had sent a letter to President Trump urging him to stop the takeover of Qualcomm by Broadcom.

As the publisher of my newest book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the Key to American Prosperity, CPA provided books for me to present at my 15 appointments with Congressional Members and/or staff, and I also had the pleasure of presenting a copy of my book to Rep. Mo Brooks and Rep. Robert Pittinger.

On March 16, CPA released a press release about the success of the annual conference fly-in. highlighting the following:

“The 2018 CPA fly-in was our best yet,” said Dan DiMicco, CPA Chairman. “The presentations and panels were very well received and by far the most informative yet, with great speakers and panelists. Without a doubt we made a strong impact on those we visited on the Hill. Our congressional speakers clearly showed us that our messaging is having an impact.”

Michael Stumo, CEO of the CPA said, “We came to Capitol Hill with a united message from our members that Main Street America urgently needs action on trade. We were encouraged to find that our elected officials are becoming more receptive to calls for greater trade enforcement. Our next step is to remind them that voters are watching, and that the time for action is now.”

CPA chair Dan DiMicco said, “In 2016, voters spoke very clearly at the ballot box. They are frustrated and tired with the business-as-usual approach in Washington. We came to Capitol Hill this week to remind our elected officials that the American people are waiting for action, and that reducing our mammoth trade deficit must be a top priority.”

“The Coalition for a Prosperous America trade conference was very useful and successful in educating our members and legislators about the dangers of continuing our country’s obsession with free trade,” said Roger Simmermaker, author of How to Buy American and a CPA member. “Several times, it was evident that many members of Congress and their staff experienced what I would call “light bulb moments” as we laid out our ideas and strategies for a better and fairer trade policy that will benefit our national economy.”

“When real workers, manufacturers, and agriculturalists converge on Washington, theory is tested against reality, and good things begin happening in America,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF and a CPA board member. “There is no question that CPA had a positive impact on U.S. trade policy this week.”

The steel and aluminum tariff discussions proved particularly wide-ranging. And as Greg Owens, CEO of Sherill Manufacturing and a CPA member, noted, “Trade and our decades-long deficits are a critical and complex issue. While I applaud the recent move to levy tariffs on steel and aluminum, the comprehensive answer must go beyond that. The overvalued dollar and tax policies are major contributors to the problem that must be addressed. CPA has detailed concrete solutions to these and other issues that I fully support. It was a privilege and an honor to help CPA introduce and develop these solutions on Capitol Hill this week.”

I am proud to be one of the 4.1 million members in the manufacturing, labor, and agricultural sectors who are “united in their view that a continuing trade deficit hampers jobs and productivity nationwide. CPA will continue to urge action on America’s troubling trade deficit, and we look forward to expanding its relationship with Members of Congress who have pledged to fight for America’s manufacturers, farmers, and their workers.”

Chairman Dan DiMicco and CEO Michael Stumo will be in southern California April 18 – 20th speaking to members of Metal Service Center and NTMA, as well as speaking at the San Marcos Manufacturing Summit to be held at the San Marcos Community Center on Friday, April 20th.  As Chair of CPA’s California chapter, I invite you to register to attend.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Currency Misalignment/Munipulation, Economy, Legislation, Manufacturing, National security, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Will Help Rebuild American Manufacturing

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2018

There has been quite a furor in financial and political circles since President Trump announced the that he would impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all countries.  There has been an outcry that it would raise consumer prices, end “free trade”, and start a trade war.  The fact is that we have been in a trade war with China for nearly 20 years — from when China was granted Most Favored Nation status (PNTR) in the year 2000 under President Bill Clinton. We have been losing this trade war, and it’s about time that we stood up and fought back.

China has been cheating on what they agreed to do to attain their PNTR status within the World Trade Organization.  They have dumped products in the U. S. at below market prices to destroy American competition. The Chinese government has subsidized their steel, aluminum, and other industries. They have manipulated their currency to make it undervalued compared to the U. S. dollar.  They have stolen the Intellectual Property of American companies.  They have forced American companies to transfer technology to Chinese companies in order to establish manufacturing facilities in China.  This hasn’t been free trade or fair trade.

The U. S. trade deficit with China has increased from a small deficit of $6 million in 1985 to $375.2 billion in 2017.  China represented 40% of our total trade deficit in goods of $810 billion in 2017, and our trade deficit has already increased at a record pace for January 2018.

As I pointed out in my December 7, 2017 IndustryWeek column, “How Trade Policies Led to the Decline of American Manufacturing, “As a result of the escalated trade deficits from 2001 to 2010, the U.S. lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs and 57,000 manufacturing firms closed… our domestic supply chain has weakened…We even lost whole industries…” This number of jobs lost represents about 30% of the manufacturing workforce we once had.  Actually, “the number of jobs in manufacturing has declined by 7,231,000–or 37 percent–since employment in manufacturing peaked in the United States in 1979, according to data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In the past three days, I’ve listened to conservative radio talk show hosts lambast President Trump’s National Trade Director, Peter Navarro.  I’m personally acquainted with him because of residing in San Diego where he resided for many years. I even remember when he ran for mayor of San Diego in 1992.  What these talk show hosts and their guests fail to mention is that he was a professor of Economics at the University of California, San Diego for many years, and was professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine prior to becoming part of the Trump administration.  He knows what he is talking about.

Navarro was one of the first authors to point out the threat that China is to the U.S. I’ve read two of his three books:  The Coming China Wars, published in 2008, which I read when I was writing my own book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved?  Why we should and how we can.” Then I read the second book that he co-authored with Greg Autry, Death by China, in 2011. Greg Autry has spoken at several of the manufacturing summits I participated in producing in southern California on behalf of the Coalition for a Prosperous America.  Greg Autry and I also served together on the board of directors for the American Jobs Alliance from 2011 – 2016.

Navarro and Autry outline the eight ways China cheats in trade in cleverly worded phrases:

  1. The Export Subsidies’ Dagger to the Heart.
  2. The New “Great Game”: Chinese Currency Manipulation
  3. They Think It’s Not Stealing if They Don’t Get Caught.
  4. Trashing China’s Environment for a Few Pieces of Silver
  5. Maiming and Killing Chinese Laborers for No Fun but Lots of Profits
  6. The Neutron Bomb of Export Restrictions
  7. Predatory Pricing, Dumping and the Dragon’s Rare Earth Cartel
  8. Goodness Gracious, Great Walls of Protectionism

If you haven’t read either of these books, I can highly recommend them, and they are still available on Amazon.

The tariffs on steel and aluminum are long overdue and constitute only a single step in balancing our trade deficit.  I’m delighted that President Trump is keeping his campaign promise of imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum.  I was happy when he withdrew the U. S. from the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement as I had written more than a dozen articles about the dangers of that agreement to the U. S.  It would have been the “nail” in the coffin of American manufacturing.

There are many more policies we need to put in place to eliminate the trade deficit and restore manufacturing jobs to create prosperity.  I have made recommendations in the last chapter of my new book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the Key to American Prosperity, based on the research I have done for the articles I have written in the past six years as a columnist for IndustryWeek, along with many recommendations that have been made by the board of directors of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, of which I have been a member since 2011. Check out these issue papers on their website.

We can win this trade war if we have the same kind of courage and insight we had when we won World War II and the Cold War with the Soviet Union with the help of our allies. Remember, China has a written plan to become the Super Power of the 21st Century. If we lose this war, we may lose our country.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

How could we stop Chinese Investors from Buying U. S. Companies?

Wednesday, April 11th, 2018

After my article, “Should We Allow the Chinese to Buy Any U.S. Company They Want?” was published January 9th, I was made aware that AXIOS published an article by Steve LeVine on January 10th that provided data from MacroPolo showing that the amount of Chinese investment in the U.S is far greater and more dangerous that I thought.

He wrote, “Chinese investors and firms own a majority of almost 2,400 American companies employing 114,000 people, about the same number as the combined U.S. staffs of Google, Facebook and Tesla…”

On their website, MacroPolo is described as “an initiative of the in-house think tank of the Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago,” which “has a dedicated team of experienced observers and seasoned analysts” whose “aim is to decode China’s economic arrival …across multiple dimensions.”

The article featured MacroPolo’s interactive map, which shows the economic impact of Chinese investment in each state by economic contribution, number of firms owned, and total employment of these firms. The map “appears to be the first open-source, county-by-county study of every majority-owned Chinese company in the U.S. — $56 billion worth.”

In 2017, the top three states were:

  • California: $12.3 billion – economic contribution, 19,300 employed, 598 firms
  • Michigan: $7.6 billion economic contribution 15,200 employed, 111 firms
  • New York: $3.1 billion economic contribution, 6,300 employed, 198 firms

Kentucky was the top state in 2016 with the $5.4 billion buyout of GE Appliances in Louisville by Haier.  I was horrified when this happened because I had used GE’s reshoring of a water heater as the headline case study in my reshoring presentations, and I had visited the GE new product design center in Louisville in the fall of 2015. I had been delighted to see one appliance after another being reshored.

The most immediate way that we could reduce Chinese investment in the U. S. would be to pass the legislation I mentioned in my previous article:  The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA), introduced on November 8, 2017 by Congressman Pittenger (H.R.4311) and Senator Cornyn (S. 2098).  The key features of these bills are:

  • “Expands CFIUS jurisdiction to include joint ventures, minority position investments, and real estate transactions near military bases and other sensitive national security facilities.
  • Updates CFIUS definition of “critical technologies” to include emerging technologies that could be essential for maintaining the U.S. technological advantage over countries that pose threats.
  • Adds new national security factors to the review process.
  • Strengthens the government’s ability to protect American “critical infrastructure” from foreign government disruption.”
  • Representatives Devin Nunes (CA-22), Chris Smith (NJ-04), Denny Heck (WA-10), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), Sam Johnson (TX-03), and John Culberson (TX-07) are co-sponsors of H.R. 4311.

In his press release, Senator Cornyn said, “By exploiting gaps in the existing CFIUS review process, potential adversaries, such as China, have been effectively degrading our country’s military technological edge by acquiring, and otherwise investing in, U.S. companies…This undermines our national security and highlights the imperative of modernizing the CFIUS review process to address 21st century threats. This bill takes a measured approach by providing long overdue reforms to better protect our country, while also working to ensure that beneficial foreign investment is not chilled.”

Senators Burr (R-VA), Feinstein (D-CA), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Barrasso (R-WY), Gary Peters (D-MI), James Lankford (R-OK), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Tim Scott (R-SC) are also co-sponsors of S. 2098.

The introduction of FIRRMA may be the outcome of the recommendations of the draft annual report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission  “calling for a ban of the commission’s annual Chinese state-owned enterprises’ purchases of U.S. companies…The Commission recommends Congress amend the statute authorizing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to bar Chinese state-owned enterprises from acquiring or otherwise gaining effective control of U.S. companies…” as reported by Ali Meyer on October 27, 2016 in the Washington Free Beacon.

The first independent review of these 79-page bills was published December 21, 2017 in the Latham & Watkins Client Alert White Paper titled, “CFIUS Reconstructed: The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017.” The White Paper states, in part:

“The proposed Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act would bring substantial changes to CFIUS review. Key Points are:

  • FIRRMA could speed review of certain transactions
  • It would provide for increased scrutiny of transactions from countries of concern.
  • It would expand the scope of activities subject to CFIUS review

FIRRMA would also lengthen the CFIUS review process, extending the initial review period from 30 to 45 days, and allowing CFIUS to extend a national security investigation for 30 days beyond the existing 45-day period where “extraordinary circumstances” require. Thus, the post-notice CFIUS clock would expand from 75 days currently to either 90 or 120 days from the time of filing to the end of the national security investigation.

…But FIRRMA would also increase the resources CFIUS would have to undertake its expanded responsibilities.… In a number of important ways FIRRMA would clarify, alter, or expand current CFIUS practices. And yet, the 79-page bill leaves open certain questions, and raises still others.”

The White paper also stated that “an alternative bill was introduced into the Senate, the “United States Foreign Investment Review Act of 2017 (S.1983),” also with bipartisan sponsorship (Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Charles Grassley(R-Iowa). That said, FIRRMA’s bicameral introduction and bipartisan support, which includes Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California), as well as reports that some of FIRRMA’s sponsors worked with the Administration on the bill before it was introduced, all provide some reason to expect a version of FIRRMA to move during upcoming months.”

On December 11, 2017, Alexandra Kilroy wrote a guest blog for Adam Segal on the Council on Foreign Relations website. Alexandra is an intern in the Digital and Cyberspace Policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations. She wrote, “As Chinese firms pour funds into promising Silicon Valley start-ups, many national security experts are concerned that China may soon surpass the United States as a technological power, in part though investing in U.S. firms and acquiring cutting-edge technology.”

She commented that “the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRMMA), … appears to be motivated in part by an unreleased Pentagon report of the military applications of Chinese investments in the United States. Under the new legislation, CFIUS oversight would be expanded to include foreign investments near military facilities, minor-share investments in critical technology and infrastructure sectors, and transfers of dual-use technology to foreign entities. Acquisitions of critical technologies by “countries of special concern” would also be subject to CFIUS oversight.”

She commented that “Chinese state-led capitalism makes it difficult to distinguish between private and state-owned businesses, and many private firms have strong ties to the Chinese government. In addition, China has been historically disinclined to allow private foreign investment in many critical parts of the economy…it has traditionally maintained strict limits on foreign investment in its energy, transportation, and technology industries. Chinese firms, many with connections to the state, can invest billions in U.S. technology, but U.S. companies are often barred from doing the same.”

As a director on the board of the San Diego Inventors Forum, it greatly concerns me that Chinese investors are buying startup companies whose new technologies may be critical to the future of American technological advances.  Under the current law, Chinese investors could be buying small emerging companies that have advanced technologies that are down at the Tier 3 and 4 levels in the supply chain and never get brought up for a CIFIUS review of the acquisition.

In this regard, there are two possible scenarios that frighten me: (1) Chinese investors buying an advanced technology company and shutting it down to keep the U. S. from benefitting from the technology, and (2) having Chinese engineers insert “backdoor” technology into the product to make it not work properly or quit working when triggered remotely. The latter is already a problem with counterfeit Chinese parts in the defense and military supply chain.

On January 22, 2018, Daniel DiMicco, Chairman, and Michael Stumo, CEO, of the Coalition for a Prosperous America sent letters to Congressman Robert Pittenger and Senator John Cornyn, which said, in part:

“The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) board of directors has voted to support the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017 (FIRRMA) which you introduced on November 8, 2017 with bipartisan support.

We appreciate your recognition that foreign investment should be more tightly monitored to address new security threats posed by an evolving global landscape. Your bill appropriately expands CFIUS’s authority to review certain transactions that pose national security concerns, expands the list of factors to be considered by CFIUS and mandates disclosures by state-owned enterprises.

We agree with your reasons, and those of your cosponsors, for advancing this bill. We would additionally point out that trade is part of China’s multidisciplinary strategy to surpass the US on the global stage. China engineers persistent trade surpluses. Our corresponding deficits require us to be a net importer of capital. We sell our assets to balance the books as they sell more goods than they buy. Thus, the greater the US trade deficit, the more we sell our assets and the more we must monitor and restrict which assets are sold.

CPA believes your bill could be improved by adding economic security as a basis for rejecting investment. As an example, Canadian laws restricting investment go beyond national to economic security, i.e. net gain to the domestic economy, when buyers are state-influenced companies.”

The expansion of CIFIUS by FIRRMA may not be enough to stop the dangerous level of Chinese investment in the U.S.  Another solution would be to require reciprocity between China and the U.S. with regard to investment.  Currently, U. S. companies are not allowed to buy 100% of any Chinese company.

On January 17, 2018, CPA’s Trade Blog included an excerpt from Jenny Leonard’s article on Inside US Trade, which stated, “The White House is considering the creation of a reciprocal investment regime with China following a Section 301 [Trade act of 1974] investigation into Chinese technology and intellectual property policies…The sources said the administration, if it went that route, would apply the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president broad authority to regulate commerce “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose.”

The article describes how it could be done: “Trump, they said, would sign an executive order declaring a national emergency and, as required under the statute, “immediately” transmit a report to Congress specifying the rationale behind the emergency and actions, and naming “any foreign countries with respect to which such actions are to be taken and why such actions are to be taken with respect to those countries.”

The result “would be to restrict Chinese foreign investment in the U.S. to the extent that Beijing restricts U.S. foreign investment in its market, which could effectively lead to sectoral investment bans. Chinese investors under the new regime would have to demonstrate that China allows U.S. investment in a specific sector. For example, one source said, if Chinese investors wanted to buy a U.S. bank, they would be able to acquire no more than a 49 percent stake — in line with Chinese rules on foreign ownership of banks in China.”

Personally, I like this latter solution the best as there is still too much possibility that a Chinese acquisition may escape the expanded CIFIUS “radar screen” for a review. It’s not just our national security that is being threatened, it’s our economic security as well.

 

Posted in Inellectual Property, Legislation, Manufacturing, National security, Trade Policy | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »