Archive for the ‘Trade Policy’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Should We Allow the Chinese to Buy Any U.S. Company They Want?

Wednesday, April 11th, 2018

We Americans blithely ignore the long-term effects of allowing foreign corporations to purchase the assets of our country in the form of companies, land, and resources. We are selling off our ability to produce wealth by allowing many American corporations to be purchased by foreign corporations. It is not just foreign companies buying our assets that is the problem ? it is the state-owned and massively subsidized companies of China that are the dangerous because China uses its state-owned enterprises as a strategic tool of the state. By pretending they are private companies abiding by free-market rules makes us the biggest chumps on the planet.

How many Americans paid attention to the news that the world’s largest pork producer, American company Smithfield Foods, was acquired by a Chinese corporation in 2013? Shareholders approved the sale of the company to Shuanghui International Holdings Limited, the biggest meat processor in China.

Very few paid any attention to one of the earliest acquisitions by a Chinese corporation — when the Hoover brand was sold to Hong Kong, China-based firm Techtronic Industries in 2006 after Maytag that owned Hoover was acquired by Whirlpool.

In January 2014, Motorola Mobility was sold by Google to Chinese computer corporation, Lenovo, which means that the nation that invented smart phones is just about entirely out of the business of producing smart phones in America. This acquisition will give one of China’s most prominent technology companies a broader foothold in the U. S. Lenovo is the same company that bought IBM’s line of personal computers in 2004.

Through strategic purchases, China is positioning itself to be our energy supplier as well. Since 2009, Chinese companies have invested billions of dollars acquiring significant percentages of shares of energy companies, such as The AES Corporation, Chesapeake Energy, and Oil & Gas Assets. In 2010, China Communications Construction Company bought 100% of Friede Goldman United, and in 2012, A-Tech Wind Power (Jiangxi) bought 100% of Cirrus Wind Energy.

In a Fortune article titled  “The Biggest American Companies Now Owned by the Chinese” Stephen Gandel provides the following list of American companies acquired by Chinese investors in 2016:

  • Starwood Hotels acquired by Anbang Insurance, a Chinese insurance company that is rapidly buying up U.S. hotels…It is the latest hotel acquisition by the Chinese insurer, which last year bought the company that owns New York’s Waldorf-Astoria. “Starwood would add 1,300 hotels around the world to Anbang’s portfolio.”
  • Ingram Micro, which is No. 62 on the Fortune 500, was bought by Tianjin Tianhai Investement Development Co., “a Chinese firm that specializes in aviation and logistics.”
  • General Electric Appliance Business was bought by Qingdao Haier Co.
  • Terex Corporation, an 83-year-old Connecticut-based company that “makes machinery for construction, agricultural, and industrial purposes,” was bought by Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science.
  • Legendary Entertainment Group, which has co-financed a number of major movies like Jurassic Park, Godzilla, and Pacific Rim, was bought by Dalian Wanda
  • Dalian Wanda also bought AMC Entertainment Holdings, the U.S.’s second largest movie chain at the time of purchase, but now #1.

The acquisition of American companies by foreign corporations isn’t something new. Many prominent companies founded in America were bought by corporations from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and other European countries in the latter half of the 20th Century. Most Americans don’t realize that such iconic American companies as BF Goodrich and RCA are now owned by French corporations, and that Carnation and Gerber are now owned by Swiss corporations.

Many foreign countries don’t allow 100% foreign ownership of their businesses, but sadly, the United States does not exercise the same prudence. We allow sales of U. S. companies to foreign companies unless there are national security issues, and they almost never sell theirs to us. The Chinese government limits foreign ownership to very few selected industry sectors, that can change annually, and requires joint ventures with Chinese corporations for most industry sectors.

What is enabling Chinese companies to go on a buying spree of American assets? Trade deficits – our ever-increasing trade deficit with China over the past 20 years is transferring America’s wealth to China and making millionaires out of many Chinese. In 1994, our trade deficit with China was $29.5 billion, and it grew to $83.8 by 2001 when China was granted “Most Favored Nation” status and admitted to the World Trade Organization. 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 $347 billion in 2016. If you add the annual trade deficits with China alone for the past 20 years, it totals $4.22 trillion. China now has over one billion serious savers and more than a million millionaires whose assets when combined provide billions to spend to buy our assets.

In theory, we have the means to protect ourselves from this. CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, has the power to regulate, approve and deny these purchases. Unfortunately, it has been rare for CFIUS to block deals that don’t directly pose a threat to our national security.

The last time CFIUS reviews were expanded was July 26, 2007 when the President signed H.R. 556, Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) “after the Dubai Ports World transaction passed through CFIUS without a formal investigation, leaving a surprised and angry Congress determined to avoid a repetition of that scenario.”

However, this new Act didn’t stop recommendations for expanding the scope of CFIUS reviews. Diane Francis, author of “Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country, wrote  expressed her opinion of why CFIUS reviews should be expanded in an article in the December 15, 2013, New York Post: “Currently, American authorities only evaluate foreign takeovers on the basis of national-security issues or shareholder rights and securities laws. But these criteria are inadequate. A fairer test in the case of Smithfield, and future buyout attempts by China, should also require reciprocity: Only corporations from countries that allow Americans to buy large companies should be allowed to buy large American companies. That is why Washington must impose new foreign ownership restrictions based on the principle of reciprocity. The rule must be that foreigners can only buy companies if Americans can make similar buyouts in their countries.”

The dangers of these foreign acquisitions were also mentioned in the 2013 Annual Report to Congress by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which states, “China presents new challenges for CFIUS, because investment by SOEs can blur the line between national security and economic security. The possibility of government intent or coordinated strategy behind Chinese investments raises national security concerns. For example, Chinese companies’ attempts to acquire technology track closely the government’s plan to move up the value-added chain. There is also an inherent tension among state and federal agencies in the United States regarding FDI from China. The federal government tends to be concerned with maintaining national security and protecting a rules-based, nondiscriminatory investment regime. The state governments are more concerned with local economic benefits, such as an expanded tax base and increased local employment, rather than a national strategic issue, especially as job growth has stagnated.”

This report, continues, “China has amassed the world’s largest trove of dollar-denominated assets. Although the true composition of China’s foreign exchange reserves, valued at $3.66 trillion, is a state secret, outside observers estimate that about 70 percent is in dollars. In recent years, China has become less risk averse and more willing to invest directly in U.S. land, factories, and businesses.”

On January 26, 2017, Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, testified at a hearing on “Chinese Investment in the United States: Impacts and Issues for Policymakers” before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.  He testified: “For many years, China has recycled the earnings from its large and sustained trade deficit with the United States into U.S. Treasury bills. But the last few years have seen a marked increase in the amount of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) from China to the United States, across a range of industries. While the underlying motivation for some of this investment is commercial, at least one-third is from Chinese state-owned enterprises, and it is likely that considerably more is guided and supported by the Chinese government, specifically targeting sectors that are strategically important for U.S. national security or economic leadership.“

After ten years, there is finally action on expanding the scope of CFIUS reviews. On November 8, 2017, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC) and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) “introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to modernize the national security review of potential foreign investments in the United States, Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (“FIRRMA).”

The Press Release stated, “Chinese investment in the United States increased more than 900 percent between 2010 and 2016.  Much of this investment was part of a strategic, coordinated, Chinese government effort to target critical American infrastructure…China is buying American companies at a breathtaking pace.  While some are legitimate business investments, many others are part of a backdoor effort to compromise U.S. national security,” said Congressman Pittenger.  “For example, China recently attempted to purchase a U.S. missile defense supplier using a shell company to evade detection.  The global economy presents new security risks, and so our bipartisan legislation provides Washington the necessary tools to better track and evaluate Chinese investment…”

In a letter to Senator Cornyn, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote, “I am particularly supportive of the goals of several aspects of your proposed legislation, including but not limited to (1) the expansion of CFIUS’s authority to review certain transactions that may pose national security concerns; (2) an expanded list of national security factors that CFIUS should consider; and (3) mandatory disclosures of certain investments by state-owned enterprises.”

Earlier this year, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) published an issue flyer titled “America Must Modernize its Foreign Investment Rules.” It states:

“A wave of strategic foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies threatens our security and future prosperity. The U.S. liberalized rules on incoming foreign investment believing others would follow our lead. That belief was wrong. freely invest here while severely restricting U.S. investment there. America’s trade deficits result in a tsunami of incoming foreign investment, a change from when the US was the world’s sole superpower. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) can block incoming investment based upon national security concerns, but not for economic strategy reasons as other countries do.”

The Coalition proposed the follow remedies:

  • Expand consideration beyond national security to include economic security
  • Allow longer review periods, beyond 30 days, for CFIUS to review proposed investments
  • Include a “net benefit” test to encompass American economic interests where proposed
  • Acquisitions of companies important to future U.S. technology and employment, both civilian and defense related
  • Gauge systemic threats to U.S. interests in addition to individual cases
  • Require country by country reciprocity to allow foreign investment in U.S. companies and technology only to the extent they allow incoming US investment there
  • Prescribe heightened scrutiny of investments by state-influenced enterprises

CPA CEO Michael Stumo stated, “We must ensure that foreign greenfield investments in the US and acquisitions of existing US companies provide a clear ‘net benefit’ to the US with special scrutiny in cases of state influenced foreign entities.”

My question is:  Did we let the USSR buy our companies during the Cold War? No, we didn’t! We realized that we would be helping our enemy. This was pretty simple, common sense, but we don’t seem to have this same common sense when dealing with China.

It is time to wake up to the real dangers of our relationship with China. The Communist Chinese government is not our friend. China a geopolitical rival that has a written plan to become the Super Power of the 21st Century. Letting Chinese corporations acquire American companies, especially energy or technology-based companies is the biggest threat to rebuilding American manufacturing. With regard to China’s military buildup, the U.S.-China Commission report states, “PLA modernization is altering the security balance in the Asia Pacific, challenging decades of U.S. military preeminence in the region…The PLA is rapidly expanding and diversifying its ability to strike U.S. bases, ships, and aircraft throughout the Asia Pacific region, including those that it previously could not reach, such as U.S. military facilities on Guam.” We must not allow this policy to continue if we want to maintain our national sovereignty.

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

How Trade Policies Led to the Decline of American Manufacturing

Wednesday, January 24th, 2018

Many people think that the decline in American manufacturing started with American manufacturers sourcing manufacturing offshore in order to achieve lower labor costs, avoid regulations, and pay lower taxes. While the decline accelerated after China was granted the status of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) and was allowed to join the World Trade Organization, it actually began decades earlier.

PNTR is a legal designation in the U. S. for free trade with a foreign nation and was called Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) until the name was changed in 1998. Thefreedictionary.com defines it as “A method of establishing equality of trading opportunity among states by guaranteeing that if one country is given better trade terms by another, then all other states must get the same terms.”

Thus, it is a method to prevent discriminatory treatment among members of an international trading organization. It provides trade equality among trading partners by ensuring that an importing country will not discriminate against another country’s goods in favor of those from a third. Once a country grants any type of concession to a third-party country, this concession must be given to all other countries.

At the end of World War II, the United States was the dominant manufacturing country of the world.  The American manufacturing base had enabled the U. S. to win the war with Germany and Japan by outproducing these two countries in implements of war from ships to tanks to weapons.

Over the next 20 years, American manufacturing became synonymous with quality and inventiveness.  Companies like Ford, General Motors, General Electric, Hewlett Packard, and Levi Straus became household names.

One of the main reasons why the United States became the dominant manufacturing country in the world was that for over 150 years, our government protected and fostered the growth of American industry through tariffs. The first tariff law passed by the Congress, was the Tariff of 1789.  The purpose was to generate revenue to fund the federal government, pay down the debt of the government, and also act as a protective barrier for domestic industries from imports from England and France in particular.

Tariffs played a key role in our country’s foreign trade policy and were the main source of revenue for the federal government from 1789 to 1914, the year after income taxes went into effect in 1913.  During this long period of time, tariffs averaged about 20% on foreign imports, and at times, tariff revenue approached 95% of federal revenue.

During the Truman Administration (1945-52), foreign trade policies began to focus on liberalizing trade through moving from protective tariffs to free trade. The instructions given from Congress to the U. S. Trade Representative were:  Remove barriers to trade. A key concept of the liberalization of trade was reciprocal tariffs and low tariff rates. Two of the main reasons for this change in trade policy were to help Europe and Japan rebuild after the war and engender closer relations with the U. S. as a deterrent to the spread of communism. This ended the use of tariffs as a significant source of Federal revenue and began the increase of corporate and personal income taxes.

In 1948, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) treaty “was signed by 23 nations in Geneva on October 30, 1947, and took effect on January 1, 1948. It remained in effect until the signature by 123 nations in Marrakesh on April 14, 1994, of the Uruguay Round Agreements, which established the World Trade Organization (WTO) on January 1, 1995. The WTO is in some ways a successor to GATT, and the original GATT text (GATT 1947) is still in effect under the WTO framework, subject to the modifications of GATT 1994. GATT, and its successor WTO, have successfully reduced tariffs. The average tariff levels for the major GATT participants were about 22% in 1947, but were 5% after the Uruguay Round in 1999.”

GATT requires that exports of all countries that are party to the treaty should be treated alike by other countries that are party to the treaty, and each member is granted Most Favored Nation status. Since GATT was first signed, MFN (now PNTR) status has been granted to about 180 countries. Only a handful of communist countries have been denied MFN status.

For over 20 years, American manufacturers experienced little competition from foreign exports, but in the 1970’s Japanese and German products began to significantly penetrate the U. S. market. Due to the focus on demilitarization and decentralization in the U. S.- directed rebuilding of the Japanese and German economies, producing consumers goods was the focus.

Japan focused on audio/stereo products, cameras, pianos/keyboards, and TVs, as well as low cost automobiles and motorcycles. Companies such as Panasonic, Sony, Sanyo, Yamaha, Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Datsun (now Nissan) became the new household names in America. Mitsubishi had produced aircraft in Japan before and during WWII, including the infamous fighter plane, the Zero. Nakajima was another aircraft manufacturer that was reformed as Fuji Heavy Industries after the war and began to produce the Subaru vehicles.

Germany started focusing on automobiles such as the Volkswagen “Bug” and bus, BMWs, and then Mercedes vehicles.  They expanded into manufacturing equipment, machine tools, and scientific and laboratory instruments and equipment. Volkswagen was instrumental in Germany’s industrial recovery as their plants have escaped damage from bombing. The Volkswagen plant had been offered to England after the war as reparations, but England turned it down. Without Volkswagen being able to start manufacturing autos in 1946 after the war, the reindustrialization of Germany would have been delayed considerably.

It didn’t take long for the increased imports from Japan and Germanys to take their toll on the U. S. trade balance.  As the below chart shows, the last year we had a positive trade balance in goods was 1975:

Source:  Coalition for a Prosperous America

As a developing country, imports from China didn’t become a significant factor until the beginning of the 21st Century. The development and growth of China’s manufacturing industry was essentially funded through American companies setting up manufacturing plants in China starting in the 1990s and transferring manufacturing to Chinese contract manufacturers. Foxconn, Apple’s contract manufacturer for the iPhone and iPad, is the only Chinese manufacturer to become well known in the U.S. While Foxconn has plants in mainland China, it is actually owned by Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., a Taiwanese multinational electronics contract manufacturing company headquartered in Tucheng, New Taipei, Taiwan.

“In article titled “The Death of American Manufacturing,” published in the February 2006 Trumpet Print Edition, Robert Morley wrote: “Manufacturing loss is occurring because of globalization and outsourcing. Globalization is the increased mobility of goods, services, labor, technology and capital throughout the world; outsourcing is the performance of a production activity in another country that was previously done by a domestic firm or plant.

At the dawn of globalization, the elimination of trade barriers opened up access to foreign markets for American manufacturers in return for building factories abroad. In due course, more and more manufacturers set up shop overseas, producing goods to be sold to Americans.”

According to Yashen Huang author of Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics, China’s “indigenous private sector is conspicuously small.” The majority of urban companies are still State-Owned Enterprises (SOE’s). Other companies are privately owned, but the owner(s) are government employees, so they are still essentially government controlled.

China had lost its status as MFN through suspension in 1951 after the Communists took over control of the government in 1949. It was “restored in 1980 and was continued in effect through subsequent annual Presidential extensions. Following the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, the annual renewal of China’s MFN status became a source of considerable debate in the Congress…Congress agreed to permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status in P.L. 106-286, President Clinton signed into law on October 10, 2000.  PNTR paved the way for China’s accession to the WTO in December 2000…;”

  1. S. trade with China began to be measured in 1985 by the U. S. Census Bureau, and we had only a small deficit of $6 million. The trade deficit grew to $83.8 billion by the year 2000. However, after China was granted PNTR and became a member of the WTO, the trade deficit started to escalate. It doubled to $162.3 in 2002 and doubled again by 2014 to $344.8 billion. The 2016 trade deficit was $347 billion, down from $367 billion in 2015.  In 2016, China represented 38% of our overall trade deficit of $654.5 billion.

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. Where do all the jobs go?  Well, the U.S. Department of Commerce 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.” So, we lost about half to offshoring of manufacturing to China and other parts of Asia.

The real story is even worse than this data. In an article by Terence P. Jeffrey published on www.CBSNews.com on May 12, 2015, “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.

As a result of more and more American manufacturers setting up plants in China, our domestic supply chain was weakened. From 2001 to 2010:  The U. S. textile industry lost 63% of jobs since 2001. Communication equipment industry lost 47% of its jobs. Motor vehicles and parts industry lost 43% of its jobs. U. S. machine tool industry consumption fell 78% in 2008 and another 60% in 2009. U. S. printed circuit board industry has shrunk by 74% since 2000.  We even lost whole industries, such as:  fabless chips, compact fluorescent lighting, LCDs for monitors, TVs and handheld devices like mobile phones displays, Lithium ion, lithium polymer and NiMH batteries, low-end servers, hard-disk drives, and many others.

After over 40 years of trade policies that foster offshoring, it’s time to have a new goal for trade policies.  Instead of “remove barriers to trade,” we need to have a goal of “eliminating the trade deficit.”  The Coalition for a Prosperous America has recommended this goal for years, and on March, 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.”

As soon as the tax reform bill is signed by President Trump, Congress needs to pass this Resolution before the end of the year, so we can start 2018 on a new track.

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

“Eliminate the Trade Deficit” Resonates in Halls of Congress

Tuesday, March 21st, 2017

 “You were ahead of the curve on trade.” This was the common refrain heard last week by members of the Coalition for a Prosperous America who attended our annual fly-in to Washington, D. C. We had eight teams of members visiting Congressional Representatives and Senators on March 14th and 15th. As Chair of our developing California chapter, it was my fifth year attending the CPA fly-in, and our simple message of eliminating the trade deficit resonated well in the halls of Congress.

No one could deny that we have a huge deficit as shown on the chart below:

 

The annual trade deficit has reduced our U. S. GDP by some 3% to 5.5% each year, and those reductions compound over time.

There is no historical record of any other country in history running 41 years of consecutive trade deficits. Why is this important? Because every billion dollars of net imports costs 4,500 American jobs according to conservative estimates. So last year’s $502 billion deficit equates to 2.25 million jobs lost.

As a result, our Labor Force Participation is in serious decline. The U. S. is the only G7 nation with a DECLINE in LFPR since 1998 for workers ages 15-64. It peaked at 77.4% in 1998 and dropped down five points to 72.6% in 2015, meaning that over 7 million people dropped out of labor force since 1998.

The remedy recommended by the Coalition for a Prosperous America is simple: Congress should establish a national goal to eliminate the trade deficit.

Balanced trade over time is the goal of free trade and of fair trade. Balanced trade will re-industrialize our country, enable massive job creation, grow our wealth and effectively neutralize foreign mercantilism. Trade policy must address true drivers of deficit, these countries and their practices. Many of these countries have export-oriented growth strategies in which they rely upon the US market to consume their exports rather than increasing their internal consumption. China, Germany, Japan and other countries pursue net exports through strategic mercantilism, not free trade. Currency manipulation, value added taxes, state influenced enterprises, and other
tactics are used.

The following top 10 countries account for 90% of America’s 2016 goods trade deficit:

Rank Country 1992 Deficit 2016 Deficit Change 1992-2016
1 China -$18B -$355B -$337B
2 Mexico -$6B -$115B -$121B
3 Japan -$50B -$75B -$25B
4 Germany -$8B -$70B -$62B
5 Canada -$15B -$58B -$53B
6 Ireland +5B -$36B -$37B
7 Vietnam $0B -$34B -$34B
8 South Korea -$2B -$30B -$30B
9 Italy -$4B -$30B -$26B
10 India -$2B -$30B -$28B

Note: These figures are based on U.S. Commerce Dept. data subtracting Imports for Consumption from Domestic Exports which are intended to strip out goods that enter and leave the U.S. simply for re-export, without having any significant value added to them inside the U.S.

Currency manipulation and misalignment are key tactics that the above countries use to gain an advantage in trade. Currency manipulation is trade cheating, because it is both an illegal tariff and a subsidy.

Foreign governments intervene in foreign exchange markets by buying dollars. More than 20 countries have intervened in foreign exchange markets to undervalue their currencies in the past ten years. These countries account for one-third of the world economy and two-thirds of the world’s current account surpluses. Gagnon has calculated that “A country’s current account balance increases between 60 and 100 cents for each dollar spent on intervention.”

“The largest loser is the United States, whose trade and current account deficits have been $200 billion to $500 billion per year larger as a result. The United States has thus suffered 1 million to 5 million job losses.” (Bergsten, 2012) The U. S. economy cannot produce jobs and wealth without addressing this problem. The Coalition for a Prosperous America proposes the following solutions:

• U.S. trade enforcement law should treat currency undervaluation as a countervailable subsidy
• Tariffs should be applied against currency manipulators to neutralize their unearned advantage
• Government policy should pursue a dollar priced at equilibrium rather than accept a persistently overvalued dollar
• Trade agreements should include effective controls on currency manipulation and misalignment

Border Adjustable Consumption Taxes (aka VATs) are a tariff by another name. They are allowed under WTO rules and range from 12% to 24% with the average being 17% globally. This means that virtually all foreign countries tax our exports at this average 17% VAT. They subsidize domestic shipments abroad with rebating the VAT to their manufacturers. The U.S. does not have a VAT to offset this advantage.

Consumption taxes are a tax on consumption as opposed to income, wealth, property, or wages. A Goods and Service Tax (GST) and a Value Added Tax (VAT) are consumption taxes. They are usually a tax only on the “value added” to a product, material, or service. Over 150 countries have such taxes, but the U. S. does not.

The U. S. negotiated tariff reductions or elimination in good faith with our trading partners under NAFTA and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA, but Mexico instituted a 15% VAT, and Central America established a 12% VAT.

After 40 years of tariff reduction under various trade agreements, other countries replaced tariffs with VATs, but the U. S. did not. Thus, American exporters face nearly the same border taxes as they did in the early 1970s.

To solve this problem, the Coalition for a Prosperous America proposes that Congress implement a border adjustable consumption tax (VAT) and use the proceeds to credit against the payroll taxes paid by all workers and businesses. The benefits would be:

• Reduce the cost of labor in the U.S.
• Give every worker a raise
• Lower the price of U.S. exports
• Levy a tax on imports

In President Obama’s 2016 budget, Payroll Taxes were projected to be 31% of the revenue or $1.11 trillion. If a 12.9% VAT were set, it would produce approximately $1.45 trillion in tax revenue, completely offsetting the revenue from Payroll Taxes. All Payroll Taxes could be eliminated with a credit. With a 15% VAT, other tax reform or domestic production cost reduction could be funded. European Union countries use their VATs to provide another revenue stream to allow them to reduce their corporate taxes to be more globally competitive.

The benefit of giving a Payroll Tax credit out of VAT funds is that it would offset the regressiveness of a VAT by elimination of the regressive Payroll Tax. There would be no impact on prices of domestic goods and services, but prices of imported goods and services would increase. This would incentivize consumers to buy Made in USA products instead of imports. In addition, it would reduce the cost of production for U. S. producers enabling them to be more competitive in the global marketplace.

Our Coalition members also encouraged Congress to reinstate the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) that was struck down by an unelected foreign tribunal of the World Trade Organization. Congress caved in to the WTO ruling and passed repeal legislation that exceeded the WTO ruling eliminating COOL for beef and pork, as well as for ground beef and ground pork.

Canada and Mexico want to export their cattle, hogs, beef, and pork to the U. S. without informational labeling that reveals where the cattle and hogs were born, raised, and slaughtered. Right now, meat packers are able to import cattle and hogs and slaughter them to get the USDA stamp. Consumers want to know where cattle and hogs were born and raised, not just slaughtered for reasons of food safety.

Congressional Representatives and Senators need to have the courage to reinstate COOL and vigorously defend our national sovereignty and consumer choice against international interference. COOL legislation enables consumers to Buy American in the grocery store. It prevents consumer deception and empowers consumers to buy food produced under the safety regime of their choosing. It would help to jumpstart America’s ailing rural economy through supporting domestic producers and preventing industry consolidation.

The final message that is critical is that the U. S. must modernize its foreign investment rules to protect American companies that are critical to our national security and economic security. Investors from countries like China, Japan, and South Korea are making strategic acquisitions of U. S. companies and land that threaten our security and future prosperity. These same countries either severely restrict or do not allow 100% acquisition of companies in their country. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) can block incoming investment based upon national security concerns, but not for economic strategy reasons as other countries do.

Congress must update the laws governing foreign investment to include economic security and allow longer review periods, beyond 30 days, for CFIUS to review proposed investments. This would allow more time to gauge systemic threats to U. S. interests in addition to individual cases. The legislation should include a “net benefit” test to encompass American economic interests where proposed acquisitions of companies that are important to future U. S. technology and employment are concerned (both civilian and defense related).

The question now is – Will Congress have the courage to take the bold action needed to eliminate the trade deficit, address currency manipulation, reinstate COOL and control foreign investments? Time will tell.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Manufacturing, National security, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

EPI Report Claims U.S.-China Trade Deficit Cost 3.4 Million Jobs

Tuesday, February 14th, 2017

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 explained 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) (investments that lead to dumping), and operates as a refuse lot for carbon and other industrial pollutants. China has also engaged in extensive and sustained currency manipulation over the past two decades, resulting in persistent currency misalignments.”

As a result, “China’s trade-distorting practices, aided by China’s currency manipulation and misalignment, and its suppression of wages and labor rights, resulted in a flood of dumped and subsidized imports that greatly exceed the growth of U.S. exports to China.”

He added, “the WTO agreement spurred foreign direct investment (FDI) in Chinese enterprises and the outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing plants, which has expanded China’s manufacturing sector at the expense of the United States, thereby affecting the trade balance between the two countries. Finally, the core of the agreement failed to include any protections to maintain or improve labor or environmental standards or to prohibit currency manipulation.”

These trade policies have resulted in an enormous trade deficit with China. Scott, stated, “From 2001 to 2015, imports from China increased dramatically, rising from $102.3 billion in 2001 to $483.2 billion in 2015… U.S. exports to China rose at a rapid rate from 2001 to 2015, but from a much smaller base, from $19.2 billion in 2001 to $116.1 billion in 2015. As a result, China’s exports to the United States in 2015 were more than four times greater than U.S. exports to China. These trade figures make the China trade relationship the United States’ most imbalanced trade relationship by far…”

He explained, “Overall, the U.S. goods trade deficit with China rose from $83.0 billion in 2001 to $367.2 billion in 2015, an increase of $284.1 billion. Put another way, since China entered the WTO in 2001, the U.S. trade deficit with China has increased annually by $20.3 billion, or 11.2 percent, on average.

Between 2008 and 2015, the U.S. goods trade deficit with China increased $100.8 billion. This 37.9 percent increase occurred despite the collapse in world trade between 2008 and 2009 caused by the Great Recession and a decline in the U.S. trade deficit with the rest of the world of 30.2 percent between 2008 and 2015. As a result, China’s share of the overall U.S. goods trade deficit increased from 32.0 percent in 2008 to 48.2 percent in 2015.” Scott notes that the figures in this paragraph derive from his analysis of USITC 2016 data.”

Previously, the U. S. had a trade surplus in advanced technology products, but now we have lost that comparative advantage. Scott stated, “Global trade in advanced technology products… is instead dominated by China. This broad category of high-end technology products includes the more advanced elements of the computer and electronic parts industry as well as other sectors such as biotechnology, life sciences, aerospace, and nuclear technology. In 2015, the United States had a $120.7 billion deficit in advanced technology products with China, and this deficit was responsible for 32.9 percent of the total U.S.–China goods trade deficit. In contrast, the United States had a $28.9 billion surplus in advanced technology products with the rest of the world in 2015.”

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).

After explaining how EPI calculated the loss of jobs due to the U.S.-China trade deficit, he wrote, “U.S. exports to China in 2001 supported 171,900 jobs, but U.S. imports displaced production that would have supported 1,129,600 jobs. Therefore, the $83.0 billion trade deficit in 2001 displaced 957,700 jobs in that year. Net job displacement rose to 3,077,000 jobs in 2008 and 4,401,000 jobs in 2015.
That means that since China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 and through 2015, the increase in the U.S.–China trade deficit eliminated or displaced 3,443,300 U.S. jobs…the U.S. trade deficit with China increased by $100.8 billion (or 37.9 percent) between 2008 and 2015. During that period, the number of jobs displaced increased by 43.0 percent.”

Scott states, “The growing trade deficit with China has cost jobs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and in every congressional district in the United States.” The report calculates job loss by state and Congressional District, stating that “The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most, and 1,238,300 jobs were lost or displaced, 36.0 percent of the 2001–2015 total. As a result, many of the hardest-hit congressional districts (in terms of the share of jobs lost) were in California, Texas, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Arizona, where jobs in that industry are concentrated. Some districts in Georgia, Illinois, New York, and North Carolina were also especially hard-hit by trade-related job displacement in a variety of manufacturing industries, including computer and electronic parts, textiles and apparel, and furniture. In addition, surging imports of steel, aluminum, and other capital intensive products threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs in these key industries as well.”

It was interesting to note that of the top 20 hardest-hit districts, eight were in California, four were in Texas, and there was one district each in Oregon, Georgia, Massachusetts, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Arizona.

The three hardest-hit congressional districts were all located in Silicon Valley in California. The 17th District lost 60,900 jobs, the 18th lost 49,500 jobs, and the 19th lost 39,400 jobs for a total loss of 149,800 jobs. His explanation for why this occurred is “Although the San Francisco Bay Area has experienced rapid growth over the past decade in software and related industries, this growth has come at the expense of direct employment in the production of computer and electronic parts.”

In summarizing the lost wages from the increasing trade deficit with China, Scott stated, “U.S. workers who were directly displaced by trade with China between 2001 and 2011 lost a collective $37.0 billion in wages as a result of accepting lower-paying jobs in nontraded industries or industries that export to China assuming, conservatively, that those workers are re-employed in nontraded goods industries…”
In addition, Scott wrote, “According to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics survey covering displaced workers (BLS 2016b), more than one-third (36.7 percent) of manufacturing workers displaced from January 2013 to December 2015 were still not working, including 21.7 percent who were not in the labor force, i.e., no longer even looking for work.”

As I have written in previous articles, Scott concludes, “The rapid growth of U.S. imports of computer and electronic parts from China also represents a threat to national security because it is connected to the outsourcing of U.S. defense products, as explained by Brigadier General John Adams (2015). The outsourcing of the defense industry makes the United States vulnerable to disruption of supply chains for key missile and communications components. Outsourcing has also reduced the quality of military equipment: a congressional report found nearly 1 million counterfeit components in the supply chain for “critical” defense systems (Senate Armed Services Committee 2012). And outsourcing has eroded the capacity of the defense industrial base for cost innovation, knowledge generation, and support for domestic employment (Alliance for American Manufacturing 2016).

Foreign Direct Investment by American companies in factories in China has also played a key role in the growth of China’s manufacturing sector and “the shift of manufacturing production and jobs from the United States to China since China entered the WTO in 2001.” Scott notes that “China is the largest recipient of FDI of all developing countries (Xing 2010) and is the third-largest recipient of FDI over the past three decades, trailing only the United States and the United Kingdom.” He wrote, “For many years, foreign-invested enterprises (both joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries) were responsible for roughly two-thirds of China’s global trade surplus…However, due to China’s indigenous innovation policies and other measures that have pushed out foreign investors, often through forced takeovers and illegal theft of intellectual property, this share has fallen sharply to only one-third in 2015…”

However, the most serious consequences of the U.S.-China trade deficit are:
• The United States net international investment position (NIIP) declined from -$2.3 trillion in 2001, before China joined the WTO, to $-7.2 trillion in 2015 (BEA 2016b).
• Each year that the United States runs a trade deficit is a year that it must borrow from abroad to finance this excess of consumption over domestic production.
• The United States ran a trade surplus in nearly every year between 1946 and 1975, and by 1975 had become the largest net lender in the world.
• The United States has run increasingly large trade deficits in every year since 1976, and has become the world’s largest net debtor.

In summary, Scott stated, “The U.S.–China trade relationship needs to undergo a fundamental change. Addressing unfair trade, weak labor, and environmental standards in China, and ending currency manipulation and misalignment should be our top trade and economic priorities with China. It is time for the United States to respond to the growing chorus of calls from economists, workers, businesses, and Congress (Scott 2014b) and take action to stop unfair trade and illegal currency manipulation by China and other countries.”

According to my calculations, our trade deficit with China and other countries since 1994 when NAFTA went into effect has added up to nearly $11 trillion dollars. President Trump has set the goal of reducing the trade deficit. I say we need to eliminate the trade deficit by implementing the smart trade policies recommended by the Coalition for a Prosperous America that address all of the trade misalignment issues mentioned in the EPI report.

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

Coalition for a Prosperous America Summit Discusses How to Grow Economy

Thursday, December 8th, 2016

On October 13, 2016, the “Southern California Manufacturing Summit” was held at the Wedgewood Center in Aliso Viejo. The summit was hosted by the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), with SDG&E/Sempra Utilities as the major sponsor, along with a long list of non-profit organizations, regional businesses and associations as sponsors and partners. The purpose of the summit was to learn and discuss how we can use Southern California’s advantages to re-grow manufacturing and create good paying jobs through smarter policies on trade, taxes, and the economy.

CPA is a unique alliance of manufacturing, agriculture, and labor working for smart trade policies and represents over three million households through our member associations and companies.
Since nearly all of our sponsors provide services that benefit manufacturers, we modified our format from previous summits to provide opportunities for our sponsors to tell about their services to promote networking among attendees.

Our first speaker was Greg Autry, Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, who discussed “National Security Concerns with the Current U.S. Trade Regime.” Among the highlights of his presentation was his statement, “There are national security concerns with trade agreements. An economy that builds only F-35s is unsustainable – productive capacity is what wins real wars. Sophisticated systems require complex supply chains of supporting industries. They require experienced production engineers, machinists, and more.”

He recently prepared a report analyzing the competition and found that we are now outsourcing most of our space-related technology. He said, “NASA awards contracts for launch vehicles to Boeing and Space X, but chose to buy Russian lower stage engines. We have to choose if we are going to have a supply chain for the space industry. We cannot rely on China to produce what we need for our military and defense systems.

He added, “The International Space station was funded by the U. S. to the tune of $100 Billion of the $120 Billion that it cost. We should not be relying on Russia’s Mr. Putin to launch our satellites and space vehicles and provide us a seat to get to the international space station.”

Autry stated, “If you own stock in Alibaba, you actually own stock in a holding company in the set up in an offshore tax haven of the Cayman Islands, and the real owner behind Alibaba is the Chinese government. In contrast, he said, “It was the wealth he created at Amazon that enabled founder Jeff Bezos to now lead Blue Origin, which was selected by the United Launch Alliance to finish development of a new engine to replace the Russian made RD-180 rocket engine used by ULA’s Atlas 5 rocket.”

He pointed out that the Germans had the best technology in WWII, but didn’t win because we out produced them. Productive capacity is what wins wars. We wouldn’t be able to do the same for a future war as China has become the shop floor for too many American manufacturers. Take the U.S. F-22 airplane vs. the Chinese J20 airplane. We have 187 F-22s, and we stopped producing them because they were too expensive. China has several hundred J-20s, and they are still producing them.

He warned, “China has been an aggressive nation for thousands of years – it’s how the country grew from a small nation state. China has expanded their claim to territorial waters to include territory claimed by all of its immediate neighbors — Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Japan, the Philippines, Japan and even New Zealand and Australia. China’s threat to these countries could eliminate getting supplies from Vietnam, Taiwan, and Korea, where companies are located that are now part of our supply chain for the military and space industry. We are going to lose our supply chain for the military and defense industry because the people in the State and Commerce Departments don’t talk to the Defense Department.”

After his presentation, July Lawton, President of The Lawton Group/TLC Staffing, explained that her company provides temporary to permanent staffing solutions for engineering, manufacturing, information technology, as well as the more traditional human resources, accounting, administrative, marketing, and healthcare positions.

Nicholas Testa, Jr., CFPIM, CSCP, CIRM, is founder and CEO of Acuity Consulting, Inc. a firm specializing in supply chain and operations management and systems consulting and training. He is president-elect of the APICS Orange County and described the types of supply chain education and training that APICS provides to its manufacturing industry members.

Economist Ian Fletcher, author of Free Trade Doesn’t Work” was the next speaker. A few highlights of his presentation were: “Free trade is trade without restrictions. Economic rivalry is taking place every day. There is rivalry for wealth and power. We live in America, and it does matter where you live. America’s trade deficit is averaging $500 B/year. Free trade is part of the cause of poverty, as well as family breakdowns. Free trade mostly destroys jobs. We are looking in a decline of quality rather than quantity of jobs. De-industrialization is occurring. Many major American companies are not American any longer; they are owned by foreign corporations. Boeing is losing manufacture of airplane wings to Mitsubishi. There is not a single airplane that doesn’t rely on parts from other countries.”

He stated, “Free trade simplified means there must be something good for both parties. Free trade is only one sided by the United States because many countries practice mercantilism. Trade is being manipulated to benefit our trading partners. The Euro currency has been manipulated to reduce the value of the currency of Germany to be lower by balancing it out with the economies of France, Italy, Spain, and Greece. The U.S. is being forced to compete with the state capitalism of Europe and Asia.”
He added, “Free traders say that trade deficit doesn’t a matter, but trade deficits mean that we consume more than we produce. David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage did not work when it was created and doesn’t work now. A nation needs some protection. Protectionism is really the American way. Alexander Hamilton was the founder of American protectionism. The U.S. had a protectionist policy until after WWII. Every country has done protectionism to succeed. He showed a chart showing the history of tariffs in the U. S.

 

 

 

 

 

He concluded, “After WWII, free trade became a policy because of the politics to win the Cold War. It is crumbling now because of politics. There are dangers in protectionism, but there are dangers in doing nothing. Treaties or trade agreements are basically about protecting property rights. The World Trade Organization has failed to enforce terms of current trade agreements and will not do any better with the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.”

After the morning break, I provided a brief overview of California manufacturing prior to moderating our panel of manufacturers. California is the 8th largest economy in the world, and if it were a country, it would be equal to France. California lost 33.3% of manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2009 compared to 29.8% nationwide, and lost 25% of its manufacturing firms.

I pointed out that even with its unfavorable overall business climate, California still ranks first in manufacturing for both jobs and output. However, since the Great Recession, California lags in manufacturing job growth at a 3.6% rate compared to the national 7.2% rate and a GDP growth rate in manufacturing of 11.2% in California compared to a 22.6% GDP growth in the U. S. as a whole.

On the positive side, California leads the nation in R&D and number of patents issued, and
California companies received $78.4 billion of VC dollars in 2015 (57% of U.S. total – up from 51% in 2010).

Mexico, Canada, China, and Japan are the top four export markets for California, and California represents 11% of total U. S. exports. California ranks second behind Texas in all exports, but
California ranks first among all 50 states in agricultural exports estimated at $13.6 billion per year. California is the biggest U. S. producer of nuts, dairy, ice cream, and wine. The top high tech export is computers and electronic products, which equals 26.1 % of all the state’s exports. Transportation goods are the second top export, consisting of airplanes, ships, unmanned vehicles, and underwater vehicles.

Besides the good weather, Southern California’s advantages are:

• Gateway to Pacific – two major ports – Long Beach and San Diego
• Major hub in western U.S. for air, rail roads & waterway transportation
• Skilled, educated workforce for ALL occupations
• Research Institutions and Universities
• Large inventor/entrepreneur pool
• Hundreds of business Incubators and Accelerators
• Angel investor networks
• Venture capital networks
• 18 Foreign Trade Zones
• Employment Training Panel funds for employee training
• Workforce Investment Boards

There is also an abundance of business resources in Southern California, such as the California Manufacturing Technology Consulting (designated California MEP), two Centers for Applied Competitive Technologies, several Small Business Development Centers and Economic Development Agencies, as well as many Chambers of Commerce and Business Councils.

I concluded with mentioning the opportunities we have to improve the California business climate, change our national tax and trade policies, return manufacturing to U.S. through reshoring, connect regional manufacturers with other U. S. suppliers, increase collaboration between manufacturers and community college to address workforce and skills gaps, and educate community/youth about career opportunities in manufacturing.

After my presentation, the following three panelists shared their stories:

James Hedgecock, Founder and President of Bounce Composites, which designs, engineers, and manufactures high-quality, durable composite goods for multiple industries, including wind energy, automotive, aerospace, and sporting goods. He shared that the company started out producing their own patented design of stand up paddleboards, but it has been tough to compete with offshore companies because of unfair trade practice. He said it was especially difficult to export to Mexico and Europe because Value Added Taxes (VATs) are added to the price of their products, making their product more expensive.

Robert Lane and Dave Mock, principals of Lane OPX, shared how they help companies optimize excellence through blending Lean Six Sigma principles, strategic business initiatives and participative management philosophies to grow organizations, and inspire high performing, motivated teams. By leveraging their deep experience in manufactur9ing, team dynamics, leadership development and organizational design, they have been able to power the turnaround of small to large companies. More recently, they have been able to help manufacturers return manufacturing to America from overseas.

Mr. Wei-Yung Lee, CEO of Carlsbad Technology Inc. was our final panelist. Based in Carlsbad, California, Mr. Lee said that Carlsbad Tech was founded 1990 and is a subsidiary of Taiwan’s leading YungShin Pharmaceutical Co. The company began as a contract manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals and has become an industry leader in manufacturing and distribution of generics, supplements, and medical devices. He said, “We have 150 employees and 15 are well-trained chemists. We have the capacity to produce 60 million capsules and 400 million tablets per year. Last year, we Launched our Comfort Vision™ contact lenses in the USA and have sold over 1 billion units in Asia. We are striving to become a global health bridge, bringing a world of innovative health products to the markets that need them. ”

After the panel, Jill Berg, President of Advanced Test Equipment Rentals, told about the products and services of her company. They rent, lease, and sell a large selection of test and measurement equipment and other types of lab equipment to companies all over the world. She announced that her company was hosting a San Diego Test Equipment Showcase on October 18th.

Then, Chris Marocchi, Field Operations Manager of California Manufacturing Technology Consulting (CMTC), explained that his organization is a non-profit consulting organization that just won the competition to provide Manufacturing Extension Program services for all of California. These services provide innovation and growth strategies along with operational enhancements to foster profitable growth for California companies. MEP services include: innovate new products, open new markets, improve workforce skills, increase product quality and reduce costs through Lean training, increase energy efficiency and green production, and optimize supply chain performance.

After our lunch break, I presented information on Lean Six Sigma Institute (LSSI) as neither of the principals was able to attend and I had obtained my Yellow Belt Certificate in Lean Six Sigma from LSSI in 2014. LSSI is boutique-style training and consulting company that uses training and coaching model to guide companies to manage Lean Six Sigma change, develop internal leaders, and sustain the results. LSSI’s is headquartered in Chula Vista California, but has satellite offices located in nine countries and employs over 60 expert consultants worldwide. Lean and six sigma principles and tools apply to virtually any process, and LSSI has successfully helped clients implement Lean Six Sigma in a variety of industries, such as manufacturing, retail, and healthcare.

Our key note speaker for the summit was Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, speaking on “Growing SoCal Manufacturing.” Mr. Stumo stated, “CPA is a true coalition
of manufacturing, agriculture, labor, Republicans, Democrats, Progressives, Conservatives, and Independents. Our members are: Trade Associations, companies, farm organizations, Labor Unions, and individuals from all walks of life. Our non-Agriculture industries are: manufacturers, steel, tooling and machining, electronics, textiles, copper, aluminum, etc. Our mission is to balance trade and produce more in America to reclaim American prosperity.”

Mr. Stumo explained that there is a difference between service jobs and manufacturing jobs. According to Investopedia, “Examples of service sector jobs include housekeeping, psychotherapy, tax preparation, legal services, guided tours, nursing and teaching. There are very few “tradable” service jobs. By contrast, individuals employed in the industrial/manufacturing sector might produce goods such as cars, clothing and toys.”

He said, “There is also a difference in income and purchasing power between manufacturing and service jobs. When considering what industry sectors to prioritize for workforce and economic development efforts, it is important to look beyond basic employment numbers. This is because, while a sector might have a lot of jobs, it might not actually be producing a lot of income for the region, which is also very important for overall economic health and vitality.”

Mr. Stumo stated, “The problem is that as more manufacturing jobs leave, more productivity leaves as well. Unlike manufacturing, service-sector jobs have strict limits in terms of productivity. For example, a live performance of Beethoven’s 5th requires the same amount of performers/employees as when it was performed early in the 19th century. Compare that with the production of almost anything manufactured — the number of workers now required to produce a bolt of fabric, for example.”

He added, “There is a regional ripple effect of service vs. manufacturing jobs. At $4.4 trillion in total sales, manufacturing is by far the biggest income generator in our nation, despite a fairly rapid decline in employment. Yet, manufacturing still manages to far outperform all other industries in terms of pure income creation. Manufacturing generates more income per worker and has much bigger ripple effects, creating much more impact in a region while helping to raise wages in lower-productivity service sectors.”

He asked the rhetorical question, “What’s wrong with a service economy? He answered, “It shrinks manufacturing employment as well as the manufacturing sector’s ability to prop up wages. A labor market that loses wage pressures of high-productivity manufacturing industries will settle at wage rates lower than markets where this wage-boosting effect is present. Economic development policy makers should be careful about shunning manufacturing or other production sectors in favor of service sectors. This is a problem because 66% of U. S. workforce is without a four-year college degree.”

He concluded stating, “America is at a crossroads. We are losing an economic competition against other nations whose mercantilist strategies are destroying our manufacturing jobs, critical industries, and our standard of living, our national security, the security of our food supply, and our children’s futures. For the U. S. to become prosperous again, our future strategy must include the following:

• National Priority of Balanced Trade
• Strong enforcement
• Stop new trade agreements to force a re-think.
• Neutralize currency manipulation
• Tax reform with VAT/consumption taxes
• Consider tariffs to neutralize imbalances

We have a choice. We can continue our current trade and tax policies or we can develop and implement a comprehensive strategy that retains and reinforces our leadership in innovation, locates investment and production in the U. S. and raises employment by creating good paying jobs.”

As chair of the California chapter of CPA, I hope you will join our efforts to make America prosperous again.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Will the TPP Stop Japan’s Currency Manipulation?

Tuesday, August 16th, 2016

The answer is a resounding “no.” The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will not stop Japan’s currency manipulation or that of any other partner country because TPP has no provisions regarding currency manipulation misalignment in its text. The problem of currency manipulation is similar to the U. S. budget deficit that keeps being kicked down the road by one Congress after another.

In this case, it is negotiators of the U. S. Trade Representative’s office who have ignored the explicit instructions of Congress with regard to handling the problem of currency manipulation in one trade agreement after another. Despite explicit Congressional instruction in the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2015, there is no currency provision within the TPP itself.

What is currency manipulation? According to Wikipedia, currency manipulation is “a monetary policy operation. It occurs when a government or central bank buys or sells foreign currency in exchange for their own domestic currency, generally with the intention of influencing the exchange rate.” Simply put, currency manipulation is the devaluation of a country’s own currency to make their exports cheaper and imports more expensive. In practice, foreign governments buy U. S. dollars to reduce the value of their currency to make their goods cheaper than U. S. goods.

Why is it a problem? According to Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, “Foreign currency manipulation is trade cheating because it is both an illegal tariff and a subsidy. The U. S. economy cannot produce jobs and wealth without addressing this problem.” Former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Volcker, explained, ‘In five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.”

The Peterson Institute Policy Brief of December 2012, “Currency Manipulation in the US Economy and the Global Economic Order” states, “More than 20 countries have increased their aggregate foreign exchange reserves and other official foreign assets by an annual average of nearly $1 trillion in recent years. This buildup of official assets—mainly through intervention in the foreign exchange markets—keeps the currencies of the interveners substantially undervalued, thus boosting their international competitiveness and trade surpluses. The corresponding trade deficits are spread around the world, but the largest share of the loss centers on the United States, whose trade deficit has increased by $200 billion to $500 billion per year as a result. The United States has lost 1 million to 5 million jobs due to this foreign currency manipulation.”

Why hasn’t currency manipulation been addressed in past agreements? A recent white paper issued by the Coalition for a Prosperous America explains:

“Since December 1945, currency manipulation has been prohibited under the rules of the International Monetary Fund. Article 4, Section 1 (iii) of the IMF Articles obliges members to: “avoid manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members….” This obligation is designed in part to serve one of the fundamental objectives set forth In IMF Article 1:  the expansion and balanced growth of international trade.

The framers of the post-World War II international system understood that imbalanced trade was mercantilism and sought a monetary system that would avoid one-sided trade results…One country, the United States, has run trade deficits for more than 40 years and has amassed more than $17 trillion in foreign debt. By no stretch of the imagination can this be the sort of ‘balanced growth of international trade” that the IMF rules are supposed to foster.’ ”

Thus, the IMF has had the authority to enforce Article 4 obligations for over 70 years, but in practice, it has only held regular forums “to persuade key members to adjust their policies…The use of mere moral persuasion has failed to produce meaningful results, rendering the IMF increasingly irrelevant. Earlier this year the Congress directed U.S. negotiators to seek to put teeth into the IMF obligations. ”

Instead, as reported by the Coalition for a Prosperous America, “the Treasury negotiated a ‘Joint Declaration of Macroeconomic Policy Authorities’ that largely restates existing obligations, fails to include any additional enforcement tools, and merely adds yet another consultation process. The Joint Declaration:

  • “Entails a ‘confirmation’ that each TPP country is “bound” under IMF rules to “avoid  manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system in order to prevent effective Balance of payments Adjustment  or to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
  • Specifies that each macroeconomic authority is to ‘take policy actions to foster an exchange rate system that reflects underlying economic fundamentals and avoid persistent exchange rate misalignments. Each Authority will refrain from competitive devaluation and will not target its country’s exchange rate for competitive purposes.
  • Requires regular reporting on foreign exchange intervention and reserve holdings.
  • Establishes regular consultations among the macroeconomic authorities. This will be in addition to the periodic meetings of IMF officials, APEC, the G-7, the G-20 and bilateral consultations.”

Therefore, nothing has changed in 70 years ago. If they haven’t complied in the past, how could they be expected to comply with their IMF obligations in the future? Is another forum going to be of any value?

In the case of Japan, its government has strategically reduced the yen’s value to give its companies a massive global price advantage. Since Shinzo Abe became Japan’s prime minister in December 2012, the Japanese currency has fallen by 55%, and he has been a full participant in IMF meetings. Three years ago, one U.S. dollar bought 76 yen. Today, one U.S. dollar buys 105 yen, down from a high of 120 yen at the end of 2015.

This manipulation subsidizes Japan’s car companies who can now undercut U.S. competitors and make a bigger profit without innovation or quality improvements. The Japanese government’s currency manipulation gives Japanese automakers as much as $7,000 more profit per car.

Toyota, the world’s largest carmaker, does not want the party to end. An article by David Fickling of Bloomberg on May 12, 2016, stated,  “Foreign-exchange effects will pull about 935 billion yen from Toyota’s operating income in the coming 12 months, assuming that the yen will strengthen to 105 to the greenback, relative to about 109 at present. ”

In my recent article on the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) report, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Likely Impact on the U.S. Economy and on Specific Industry Sectors,” I quoted the following:  “U. S. passenger vehicle imports would increase by $4.3 billion above the baseline upon full implementation of the agreement (table 4.15). Imports from Japan would increase by $1.6 billion, and imports from NAFTA partners would increase by $1.8 billion, making up the majority of the increase.”

No wonder that the American Automotive Policy Council, Inc. (AAPC) issued the following press release on May 26, 2016 regarding the USITC report, which states in part, ” We hope that Congress will carefully review this report, specifically how the ITC has measured the impact of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership on the U.S. auto industry and American manufacturing. American automakers remain concerned about possible currency manipulation by TPP trade partners, including Japan. AAPC, as well as economists from across the ideological spectrum, agree that the U.S. government should include enforceable rules prohibiting currency manipulation in its trade agreements to produce a positive economic impact on American manufacturing.”

Do you think that the Obama’s administration claim of “strict monitoring” of foreign currency manipulation will be enough? In May 2016, Japan’s finance minister, Taro Aso, said he will act to prevent the currency markets from working, telling Japan’s parliament he was “prepared to undertake intervention” in the foreign exchange market if the yen strengthens. So, a U.S. “move to put Japan on a monitoring list ‘won’t constrain’ Tokyo from intervening to manipulate the value of their yen.”

According to Michael Stumo, “There is ample precedent for taking strong action to correct currency misalignment in conjunction with past major trade agreements. The Tokyo Round and the Uruguay Round were each preceded by a realignment of currencies to reduce imbalances in the world economy. If the Joint Declaration indeed would make any difference in the real world of trade, one might expect it to come into effect immediately. Instead… Joint Declaration will take effect if and when the TPP enters into force.”

The bottom line is that economic and trade negotiators together have failed to produce even a modest step forward toward an effective, enforceable currency provision. As currently written, neither the Joint Declaration nor the TPP will stop currency manipulation by Japan or any other country. The only effective alternative would seem to be enactment of the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (H.R. 820) or its equivalent, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (H.R.644). Either would mandate the use of WTO-consistent remedies to offset injurious currency manipulation. This modest first step toward confronting mercantilist currency policies is long overdue.

 

 

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

USITC Report Reveals TPP Will Shrink U. S. Manufacturing

Wednesday, June 1st, 2016

On May 18, 2016, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) released their report, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Likely Impact on the U.S. Economy and on Specific Industry Sectors,” relative to the Agreement that President Obama signed in February with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

The USITC analysis concedes that the TPP will cause manufacturing to shrink in terms of employment, output and share of the US economy. Our manufacturing trade deficit will become worse.

Reaction to the USITC report has been mixed at best. “The U.S. Chamber Executive Vice President and Head of International Affairs Myron Brilliant welcomed the release of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) report on the likely impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the U.S. economy with the following statement:

“While we have yet to fully digest the ITC’s assessment, the report at first glance provides substantive support for the Chamber’s view that the TPP is in our national economic interest. By eliminating thousands of tariffs and other barriers to the export of U.S.-made goods and services, the TPP will create new opportunities for American workers, farmers, ranchers, innovators, and companies.”

On the other side of the spectrum, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka issued a statement, which in part said, “This ITC report is so damaging that any reasonable observer would have to wonder why the administration or Congress would spend even one more day trying to turn this disastrous proposal into a reality. Even though it’s based on unrealistic assumptions, the report could not even produce a positive result for U.S. manufacturing and U.S. workers. One of many shockers is just how meager the purported benefits of the TPP are. A mere .15% of GDP growth over 15 years is laughably small…”

The Politico Morning Trade blog of Friday, May 20, 2016 included this rebuttal:” FROMAN FIRES BACK: U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman continued his effort to capitalize on the ITC report. Speaking to business owners by telephone Thursday, the top U.S. trade official pointed out that the independent commission “conservatively” estimated the TPP would boost both U.S. exports and national income by $57 billion by 2032 – gains that would continue annually.

“This was really the president’s direction, to make sure we’re doing trade right,” Froman said. “And that meant making sure the trade agreement worked for American workers, and we think we’ve achieved that in this agreement…Froman said the study focused heavily on tariffs and didn’t project the economic benefits of other major parts of the agreement, including rules on state-owned enterprises, labor and the environment.”

Coalition for a Prosperous America CEO Michael Stumo participated on a “listen only” basis during the business group conference call on May 20, 2016. Afterward, he commented on his blog, “Despite the fact that the report nullified Froman’s entire economic case for the TPP, you would never know it from his talk. Froman created a parallel universe which was enabled by the Business Forward group sponsoring the call.”

Let us consider some of the highlights discussed in the 792-page report. The Executive Summary that the USITC “used a dynamic computable general equilibrium model to determine the impact of TPP relative to a baseline projection that does not include TPP….The model estimated that TPP would have positive effects, albeit small as a percentage of the overall size of the U.S. economy” by year 15 [2032].” The main findings were:

  • S. annual real income would be $57.3 billion (0.23 percent) higher than the baseline projections (which statistically means zero growth).
  • Real GDP would be $42.7 billion (0.15 percent) higher (again, statistically zero).
  • Employment would be 0.07 percent higher (128,000 full-time equivalents).
  • S. exports and U.S. imports would be $27.2 billion (1.0 percent) and $48.9 billion (1.1 percent) higher, respectively, relative to baseline projections.
  • S. exports to new FTA partners would grow by $34.6 billion (18.7 percent).
  • S. imports from those countries would grow by $23.4 billion (10.4 percent).
  • Output in manufacturing, natural resources, and energy would be $10.8 billion (0.1 percent) lower with the TPP than without the agreement.

Do you notice that the first four projections are less than 1 percent? Our economy has been limping along at only 1.5 percent growth in GDP, which is considered terrible. Yet, the TPP is only estimated to increase GDP by 0.15 percent in 15 years, or 0.01 percent each year. How could anyone be excited about this level of growth? For the first time, the USITC projected a worsening trade deficit with the world, which nullifies any meager net export benefit with new TPP countries. Page 21 admits that the overall U. S. trade deficit will worsen by $21.7B.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America released a flyer, “USITC Report: No Economic Upside to Trans-Pacific Partnership – Manufacturing Decline and Worsened Trade Performance” that states, “TPP Will Only Create 128,000 Jobs in 15 Years. That’s less than the 160,000 jobs created in April 2016…The US International Trade Commission projects increased national income less than one quarter of one percent [0.23%] – well within the margin of error and a statically meaningless growth over 15 years.”

The flyer points out that “the report is still too optimistic because it makes these false assumptions:

  • TPP countries will not manipulate currency
  • Job losers will immediately gain new jobs with no transition costs
  • TPP countries will stop all mercantilistic state-capitalism strategies”

Returning to the rosy projections, the USITC report states, “Among broad sectors of the U.S. economy, agriculture and food would see the greatest percentage gain relative to the baseline projections: Output would be $10.0 billion, or 0.5 percent, higher by year 15.” That is about equal to just one-year’s worth of sorghum production!

The Executive Summary states that the services sector represents the largest share of the U.S. economy, and it would expand the most:

  • “U.S. imports of services would be 1.2 percent higher
  • S. exports of services would be 0.6 percent higher
  • Services sector would have a gain of $42.3 billion (0.1 percent) in output
  • Employment would be 0.1 percent higher.”

If the service sector is supposed to expand the most and it is only 0.1 percent, why does page 34 state that the Services trade balance will worsen by $2.2B? This doesn’t sound good to me, especially when all of the projected benefits of past agreements were proved to be way too optimistic.

Chapter 4 discusses the impact on Manufactured Goods and Natural Resource and Energy Products. The Introduction states, “The TPP Agreement is likely to have a limited impact on U.S. production and trade of manufactured goods and natural resource and energy (MNRE) products. The U.S. manufacturing sector is already more liberalized than other sectors, such as agriculture and services, and duties are generally low.” This means that because duties are already low, the TPP will be less beneficial to the manufacturing sector.

Even with the “most optimistic possible” scenario for its projections, you noticed above that “Output in manufacturing, natural resources, and energy would be $10.8 billion (0.1 percent) lower with the TPP than without the agreement.”

This means that U.S. manufacturing will decline, and the manufacturing trade deficit will worsen by $24B (pages 30-31). Manufacturing employment will decrease by 0.2% (0.2% is 240,000 workers based on 12M mfg employment in 2013). Obviously, the 128,000 jobs the TPP is supposed to create in 15 years will not be the higher paying manufacturing jobs.

Chapter 4 also “examines in more depth five sectors for which there will be significant U.S. trade liberalization with the full implementation of TPP: (1) passenger vehicles; (2) textiles and apparel; (3) footwear; (4) chemicals; and (5) titanium metal.”

Passenger Vehicles: Buried in 40 pages of discussion, the report states that “Overall U.S. passenger vehicle exports would increase by more than 2 percent ($2.9 billion), and parts exports would increase by 1.5 percent ($2.1 billion) by year 30, relative to the baseline estimate.” However, ” (page 232)

“U. S. passenger vehicle imports would increase by $4.3 billion above the baseline upon full implementation of the agreement (table 4.15). Imports from Japan would increase by $1.6 billion, and imports from NAFTA partners would increase by $1.8 billion, making up the majority of the increase. Parts imports would increase by $4.5 billion, with imports from NAFTA partners increasing by $5.5 billion.” (page 249)

Textiles: “TPP would result in a 1.4 percent ($1.9 billion) increase in U.S. imports of apparel over the 2032 baseline (i.e., expected level of imports in 2032 without TPP), and a 0.3 percent ($10 million) increase in U.S. exports.” (page 254)

Footwear: “…U.S. imports from all TPP countries would rise by $1.6 billion (23.4 percent). Most of this increase would be accounted for by imports of footwear from Vietnam, the second-largest supplier overall and the biggest TPP supplier of footwear to the U.S. market.” (pages 272-273)

Chemicals: “…U.S. exports of chemical products, including pharmaceuticals, would be $1.9 billion (0.7 percent) higher than 2032 baseline estimates and U.S. imports would be $5.3 billion (1.3 percent) higher than the baseline, due in part to tariff reductions.” (page 284)

Titanium: The most significant detrimental effect of the TPP would be on the Titanium industry. The report states, ” U.S. titanium metal641 imports from TPP members, according to Commission estimates, would likely increase by $202.1 million (109.7 percent) as compared to the 2032 baseline. U.S. output would decrease by $202.4 million (1.2 percent) and employment would similarly decline by 1.3 percent, as compared to the 2032 baseline. Japan is the principal source of U.S. titanium imports,642 despite a 15 percent U.S. import duty on both unwrought titanium (i.e., titanium sponge, ingot, billet, and powders) and wrought titanium (e.g., bars, sheets, and tubes) (box 4.12), and would benefit the most from the removal of duties. U.S. exports of titanium would be slightly lower—other TPP members already apply low or zero duties on imports of these products.” (pages 292-293)

Since all other above industry sectors would be adversely affected by the TPP), it strengthens my opposition to it being approved by Congress. If you work in the manufacturing industry, I strongly recommend that you contact your Congressional Representative and urge them to oppose approval of the TPP. We don’t need a further decline of U. S. manufacturing and more loss of manufacturing jobs!

Posted in Economic Development, Jobs, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

CPA’s Balanced Trade Message has Impact on Congress

Wednesday, April 27th, 2016

I just returned last Friday night from the Coalition for a Prosperous America‘s 9th annual Fly-In to Washington, D. C. It was my 4th time to participate with CPA members from across the country to meet with Congressional Representatives and/or their staff. I noticed a big difference in the reception we got during our visits compared to my first trip. The Coalition for a Prosperous America is a nonprofit organization representing the interests of 2.7 million households through our agricultural, manufacturing and labor members, and I’ve been a member since 2011.

In his report, CEO Michael Stumo wrote, “It was an amazing experience to finally have the wind at our backs instead of facing headwinds…CPA is taken very seriously by congressional offices. They trust what we say. One-fourth of our meetings included the congressman/woman themselves, which is significant and a new high for us. Senior staffers attended our meetings rather than junior staffers as was the case only a few years ago.”

However, we have not just been doing an annual visit to D. C. once a year since 2008. Teams of CPA members led by Michael Stumo have made visits to D. C. once or twice a month since January 2015. Here in California, teams of members led by me have visited the offices of 37 of the 53 Representatives from one to six times since 2013. In addition, CPA has co-hosted four manufacturing summits in California starting in 2013 ? two in San Diego, one in Orange County, and our recent one in Sacramento in February. The same kinds of activities have taken place in other states where CPA has a state chapter, such as Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania.

In all of our visits, either in district or in D. C., we have constantly focused part of our message on simply establishing why our huge trade deficit not only matters, but is core to our national economic malaise. As I have written in past articles, our annual trade deficit over the past 20 years has a relationship to our national debt and is a major cause of the loss of 5.8 million manufacturing jobs and the nearly 95 million people that are no longer part of the workforce.

For years, we have been emphasizing the following:

  1. Trade deficits matter, they kill jobs and growth: This may sound obvious to you and me, but many Representatives and their staffer did not believe trade deficits mattered in the past. They were unwilling to admit the serious consequences in having a huge deficit in goods. So, if trade deficits were not a problem, there was no need to pursue a solution. Michael Stumo wrote, “This past week showed we have largely won that argument. We can only grow jobs and our economy if we focus upon a national strategy to balance trade by identifying the biggest trade cheating problems and aggressively fixing them.”

Our teams distributed a flyer titled, “Balanced Trade: Fighting the New Mercantilism” recommending that Congress establish a national goal to balance trade over a reasonable period of time by means of:

  • Direct trade negotiators to pursue trade deficit reduction as a primary negotiating objective.
  • Review past agreements for compliance with this objective. Renegotiate those that fail the test.
  • Utilize tax, fiscal and monetary policies to achieve the goal.
  • Aggressively and systematically attack and neutralize foreign mercantilism.
  1. Past trade agreements have not improved our trade performance: For years, we have heard this line from the establishment and Congressional Representatives: “Trade agreements establish American leadership, grow exports and create jobs.” The refrain was: “Trade is beneficial. We are increasing exports, and we have a surplus in services.” The only time I heard this refrain this year was by a legislative assistant in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office.

We were able to trounce this argument this year by distributing a flyer that clearly showed the poor trade performance of our past agreements through visual aids CPA spent a lot of time developing (see below). We clearly showed that modern foreign mercantilism has moved beyond the tariff and non-tariff barrier provisions in trade deals. Indeed, those deals often made our trade problems worse. For example, our trade deficit with Korea has nearly doubled since it went into effect in 2012 (from $14.7 billion to $28.4 billion in 2015.)

The TPP will likely make America worse off: CPA read and digested the pro-TPP studies by Petri and Plummer, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper 16-2, Jan 2016 and the “Global Economic Prospects: Potential Macroeconomic Implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” by the World Bank, Jan 2016. These reports tried to hide the problems and exaggerate gains. Our CPA teams distributed a flyer that “displayed the results through insightful infographics showing that any projected gains were embarrassingly meager and fundamentally implausible”[because] “The studies assume, without analysis, (a) no currency misalignment, (b) no foreign border taxes that replace tariffs, (c) no industrial subsidies and state-influenced enterprises, and (d) no mercantilism.” As Michael Stumo wrote, “These assumptions are untrue. Therefore, we cannot achieve the meager growth projected. We showed how those studies were built upon a series of demonstrably false assumptions to produce those meager gains. Then we showed why losses to American workers, industry and the economy were nearly certain when you eliminated the false assumptions.”


This year we also proposed tax reform that can fix some major foreign trade cheating on a large scale. As Michael Stumo, wrote, “Tax reform is a challenge because K Street lobbyists rig the game for special interests and no connection is made with our success in producing here and winning the international trade competition. However, we made significant gains in showing how we can fight foreign consumption taxes that act as tariffs by smartly adding a US consumption tax and funding the reduction of other regressive taxes and costs to fix the problem. We also showed how we can fix the corporate income tax system with sales factor apportionment to halt tax haven abuse by transnationals, incentivize US domestic production, and make foreign companies pay their fair share of income tax when selling into the lucrative American market.”

The good news is that everyone we saw seemed to agree that the TPP does not have the votes to pass before the election. The danger will be in the “Lame Duck” session. We seem to be in a far better position to prevent future passage than we were last year at this time with regard to passage of the “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority. Michael Stumo, wrote, “We almost beat Fast Track last June. Indeed we won the first votes in regulation time but lost in overtime when the Empire Struck Back. Now, it seems that the anti-Fast Track block is holding strong and quite a lot of pro-Fast Track congressional members have either declared opposition to TPP or are leaning against it.”

Michael added, “GOP House leadership pushed Fast Track through last year but they seem to view TPP as toxic now. The GOP rank and file are letting House leadership know they do not want to vote on TPP at any time in the foreseeable future. The Senate side is less solid and has always posed the bigger challenge. Senate majority leadership wants changes to TPP but still wants get to ‘yes.’ However, the changes being demanded are difficult (but perhaps not impossible) to deliver.”

We are being helped by the stand against trade agreements by two of the major presidential candidates, Trump and Sanders, who bring up our broken trade policy in almost every speech. “Trade has become one of the few, rare ‘voting issues’… an issue that actually moves voters to support or oppose a candidate.”

While this has been a several year battle, we haven’t won yet and still have a lot to do. The establishment will continue say that the voters simply don’t understand the “greater good.” Pundits will continue to write many “reasoned” articles about why the voters should support trade agreements such as the TPP. But the success of Trump and Sanders shows that the establishment has not only lost its clout, it is actively disbelieved by many now.

Help us to grow this movement and increase our effectiveness. Encourage your friends and colleagues to participate. Let’s keep up the good fight!

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

How Could the Trans Pacific Partnership Affect you or your Business

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

On February 4, 2016, President Obama signed the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement on behalf of the United States. The TPP agreement has been in negotiation behind closed doors since 2010 between the United States and 11 other countries around the Pacific Rim: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The TPP is a “docking agreement” so other countries could be added without the approval of Congress. India, China, and Korea have expressed interest in joining the TPP.

Our elected representatives in Congress had no involvement in writing the TPP – it was written by the staff of the U. S. Trade Representative office, with over 600 corporate advisors (think corporate lawyers) helping them write it. It contains more than 5,500 pages, and no member of Congress could view it as it was being negotiated until late 2014. Even then, they could not take any staff with them and were not allowed to take pen, pencil, paper, or a camera when they went to view it at the U. S. T. R.’s office.

The full text of the TPP was finally released to the public to review in November 2015, and it now awaits Congressional approval. According to the rules established by the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that passed Congress narrowly in June 2015, Congress will only be allowed 45 days for committee analysis after the bill is introduced, only 15 days after that is completed to bring it up for a floor vote, and only 20 hours of debate in the House and Senate. The TPA does not allow any amendments, filibuster, or cloture. Notice that the TPP is called an “Agreement,” as was NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS, and every other trade deal in the past 22 years. The purpose for this is to get around the requirement of the two-thirds vote of the Senate to approve a Treaty that is required under Article 1, Section 8 of the Treaty clause in the U. S. Constitution. The TPP requires only a simple majority vote (50% + one.)

Supporters of the TPP say that it represents 40% of the world’s economic activity (GDP), but they fail to mention that the U. S. and its current trading partners represent 80% of that 40%. The other five countries represent the other 20%, with Japan alone being 17.7% of that total.

The current goal of trade agreements as given by Congress to the U.S.T.R is to “remove trade barriers,” such as tariffs, quotas, etc. and increase U. S. exports. The U. S. cut tariffs and opened our markets by means of these trade agreements. However, our trading partners didn’t really open their markets to us. They played another game ? mercantilism, featuring rampant global currency devaluation, consumption taxes called Value Added Taxes (VATs) that are tariffs by another name, massive subsidies to their industries, and industrial policies that favor their domestic supply chains.

In brief, the effect to the United States of this unbalanced trade has been:

  • Loss of >600,000 mfg. jobs from NAFTA
  • Loss of 3.2 million mfg. jobs between 2000 – 2010 from China’s entry into WTO
  • Loss of >60,000 mfg. jobs since Korea-US Agreement went into effect in 2012
  • Loss of an estimated 3.4 million U. S. service & call center jobs since 2000
  • Loss of an estimated 700,000 public sector jobs (2008-2013)
  • Racked up cumulative trade deficit of $12 trillion in goods (average $500 billion each year) since 1994

As a result, we now have the worst trade deficit in U. S. history, and we are off to even a higher deficit this year based on the trade figures released for January ($45.9 billion) and February ($47.1 billion). As a recent example of the effect of trade agreements on our total trade deficit, our trade deficit with Korea has nearly doubled in less than four years, increasing from $14.7 billion in 2012 to $28.4 billion in 2015. Proponents of KORUS promised that it would create 70,000 jobs and $10 billion in exports.

As mentioned in a previous article, proponents of the TPP aren’t even giving such rosy predictions. The Peterson Institute’s analysis of the TPP states: “…GDP is projected to fall slightly (-0.54 percent), employment to decline by 448,000 jobs…”

What are some of the ways the TPP could affect you or your business?

Buy American Act would essentially be made Null and Void: The worst effect would be to those businesses who sell to the government, whether it be local, state, or federal because under the TPP procurement chapter, the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries. This means that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement would be provided access equal to domestic firms to bid on government procurement contracts at the local, state, and federal level. There are many companies that survived the recession and continue in business today because of the Buy American provisions for government procurement, especially defense and military. The TPP could be a deathblow for companies that rely on defense and military contracts. However, it would also affect procurement for infrastructure projects, such as bridges and freeways, as well as construction of local, state, or federal facilities.

Of course, this means that U. S. companies could bid on government procurement projects in TPP countries, but the trading benefit is miniscule. The U. S. government procurement market is 7X the size of current TPP partner countries (+550 billion vs. $55 -70 billion.) It is also highly unlikely that U. S. companies would be the low bidder against domestic companies in these TPP countries because of the vast difference in wages in countries such as Vietnam, where the average wage is 55 cents/hour. Past trade agreements has resulted in an average annual wage loss of 5.5% for full-time workers without college degrees, and U. S. wages have been stagnant for decades, growing by only about 2% per year since 2008. The result has been increased wage inequality from low to high wage earners.

Product Labeling could be Made Illegal: If you like to know if your food is safe, then you won’t like the fact that “Country of Origin,” “Non-GMO,” or “Organic” labeling could be viewed as a “barrier to trade” and thus be deemed illegal. According to Food & Water Watch, around 90% of the shrimp and catfish that Americans eat are imported. They warn, “The TPP will increase imports of potentially unsafe and minimally inspected fish and seafood products, exposing consumers to more and more dangerous seafood.” Many TPP countries are farm-raising seafood in polluted water using chemicals and antibiotics prohibited in the U. S. Farmed seafood from Malaysia, Vietnam, and China is being raised in water quality equivalent to U. S. sewers. Today, the FDA only inspects 2% of seafood, fruits and vegetables, and the USDA only inspects 4-5% of meat & poultry. Increased imports of food from TPP trading partners could swamp FDA and USDA inspections, so that even less is inspected.

TPP would Increase Immigration: If you are concerned about jobs for yourself or family members, then you won’t like the fact that the TPP increases “the number of L1 visas and the number of tourist visas, which can be used for business purposes.” Any service provider (phone service, security, engineers, lawyers, architects or any company providing a service) can enter into a TPP partner country and provide that service. Companies don’t have to hire Americans or pay American wages – they can bring in own workers and pay less than the American minimum wage.

TPP would Increase Job Losses in Key Industries: If you work in the automotive or textile industries, you may lose your job. The Center for Automotive Research projects a loss of 91,500 U. S. auto jobs to Japan with the reduction of 225,000 automobiles produced in the U. S. Also, the National Council of Textile Industries projects a loss of 522,000 jobs in the U. S. textile and related sectors to Vietnam.

TPP would Reduce Reshoring: Because TPP will reduce tariffs in trading partner countries, such as Vietnam, it will make the Total Cost of Ownership analysis to return manufacturing to America more difficult to justify. The high U. S. dollar has already diminished reshoring in the past year, so Harry Moser, Founder and President of the Reshoring Initiative, recently told me that “The combination of the high USD and TPP will reduce the rate of reshoring by an estimated 20 – 50%.”

Remember that the TPP is missing any provisions to address the mercantilist policies practiced by our trading partners: currency manipulation, Value Added Taxes that are both a hidden tariff and a hidden export subsidy, government subsidies/state owned enterprises, and “product dumping.”

 America is at a crossroads. We can either continue down the path of increasing trade deficits and increasing national debt by allowing anything mined, manufactured, grown, or serviced to be outsourced to countries with predatory trade policies. Or, we can forge a new path by developing and implementing a national strategy to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth and strong domestic supply chains. If you support the latter path, then add your voice to mine and millions of others in urging Congress not to approve the TPP in either the regular session before the Presidential election or the “lame duck” session after the election.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Country of Origin, Inellectual Property, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Reshoring, Trade Policy | No Comments »

What is the Heart and Soul of Manufacturing?

Tuesday, March 15th, 2016

Once in awhile you read a book that has such kernels of truth that they touch your soul. One such book is The Heart & Soul of Manufacturing by Bill Waddell that I just finished reading. The subtitle reveals the focus of his book: “How Lean Management aligns with the better angels of our nature to create extraordinary business results.”

I met Bill in 2014 when we were both speakers at the Lean Accounting Summit in Savannah, Georgia and reconnected with him at the summit in Jacksonville, Florida last year. I knew that we connected at a higher level because of his presentations and the topics we cover in our blogs, but reading his latest book confirmed it.

Bill has been a lean guru for more than 30 years, and in his Introduction, he writes this about his journey, “During the time I have grown in my own thinking from seeing lean as an exciting new set of tools to use on the factory floor and in the supply chain, to an all-encompassing business and economic model, to what it truly is: All of the above driven by and centered on a powerful and rare organizational culture.”

My own lean journey has been much shorter ? only 10 years since I attended my first workshop about lean in 2006, but it was preceded by getting my certificate in Total Quality Management in 1993. By the end of the 1990s, I had discerned that TQM failed because it started from the bottom up with “Quality circles” and was not adopted as a philosophy or incorporated into the corporate culture by C-level management.

I began my lean journey with the viewpoint that the adoption and implementation of lean tools and principles would help American companies be more competitive in the global marketplace and play a role in “saving” American manufacturing as expressed in my book published in 2009.

When I read Bill’s book, I resonated with his statement, “The cut throat world of business, and especially manufacturing over the last thirty years, has become centered on the negative: laying off good people in pursuit of lower headcounts, closing plants and moving the work to China, decimating entire small towns across America, and bankrupting small suppliers by abruptly terminating long relationships and replacing them with cheaper foreign sources.” These facts are what motivated me to write my book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can.

The understanding of the importance of the total transformation of the culture of a company was revealed to me when I took classes in 2014 from Luis Socconini of the Lean Six Sigma Institute to acquire my Yellow Belt in Lean Six Sigma and thereafter read his book, Lean Company.

After years of applying the Toyota Production System tools and principles in his consulting, Bill dug deeper into the precepts behind them to understand what enables “Toyota with its nearly perfect track record of providing lifetime employment to its workers ? and making a lot of money at the same time.” One of the five precepts that more Americans need to emulate is “Be contributive to the development and welfare of the country by working together, regardless of position, in faithfully fulfilling our duties.”

Bill realized that there are other people like him “who want to do their jobs well, but also want to treat people well…they want to have a positive impact on the world around them and especially on the people around them.” The purpose of his “book is to send the message to those people that it is possible to do both…it provides a path for good people to combine the crafts of their trade with their moral code, to be good manufacturers because they are good people, rather than feeling they must either be good manufacturers or good people.”

Bill’s book features in depth consideration of companies that are every bit Toyota’s equal in their people-centered culture: ATC Trailers, Barry-Wehmiller, and West Paw Design.

Bill states that a lean culture is more than a “feel good culture;” it must be “a driver for a completely different way of running the business.” It must be based on “servant leadership,” wherein “the servant leader is always asking, ‘How can I help?’ Leadership and management exist to enable the folks on the front lines to better serve customers.”

Bill writes, “Eliminating waste and empowering people intersect beautifully.” But, in the goal to eliminate waste, “The resources that are the most important to eliminate wasting are people’s time and talents.” He adds, “Traditional management sees human beings as little more than unique tools, while lean thinkers see people as the very heart and soul of the organization’s reason for existence.” And, “In a lean company letting a thinking, feeling, growing person go ? laying them off ? is a shameful waste of a resource that is both precious and has enormous economic value.”

Those familiar with lean will understand his emphasis in a subsequent chapter on organizing a company by value streams, which engenders the feeling that “we’re all in this together” in the “shared commitment to the common good.” In a company with a lean culture, “success is defined by how the team performs along the entire end-to-end value stream…Rather than pit people against each other for individual recognition, lean incentivizes people to help each other, and to do whatever they can to make the other folks on the team more capable, to enable them to bring more of their talents to bear on the job.”

In chapter 5, “It’s all about Growth,” he writes, “There is a widespread misconception that lean is a strategy for reducing costs by eliminating waste. Quite to the contrary, lean is an engine for growth. The purpose of waste reduction and ideally elimination is to free up capacity.” When you free up capacity, you can grow, produce more, and make more profits. As Bill writes, “no company has ever cut its way to success…Success can only come from more, and you can’t cut your way to more.”

In chapter 6, “Hard Core Culture,” Bill discusses what is meant by a lean culture in contrast to “the traditional culture of blame, and its companion – arrogance…that causes most companies to fail from the inside out.” While a lean culture eliminates blame to utilize the Deming Cycle of Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA), Bill states, “The core concept of respect for people is not just theoretical or philosophical respect based on the belief that we are all children of God and equal in His eyes. It is professional respect, as well…based on the knowledge that no one knows everything about a process or an operation, but everyone involved knows something.”

Chapter 7, “Accounting,” contains Bill’s easy to understand explanation of “the important aspects of lean accounting, and how they support the decisions a principled, faith driven manager…” Lean accounting measures costs “based on cross functional value streams, rather than in each functional silo. It is based on “real money…it largely does away with the various types of cost types typically assigned to them…Standard costs are done away with in lean.”

I became a big proponent of lean accounting after a four-hour module in my Yellow Belt class that was reinforced when I attended sessions at the Lean Accounting summits of 2014 and 2015.

In chapter 8, Bill recounts the horrific story of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire that I recounted in my own book, wherein 145 women workers died in a fire because the doors were locked so the women couldn’t get out via the stairs, three of the four elevators weren’t working, and the owners had not installed a sprinkler system. It was the worst industrial incident in American history. It shocked the country and “it set off a series of laws and changes in industrial safety that eventually put an end to sweatshops in the United States.”

Bill then recounts the stories of two equally or more horrific tragedies that occurred in 2012 and 2013 offshore: Tazreen Fashions factory fire in Bangladesh where 117 women died in a fire because of locked doors and no fire prevention system and the Rana Plaza factory building collapse killing more than 1,200 people. He comments, “Since NAFTA was enacted some twenty or more years ago there has been a flurry of global trade agreements that typically pay little more than lip service to moral and ethical issues…These same trade agreements have had the effect of causing American environmental regulations to be something of a sham…great swaths of American manufacturing has moved to places such as China and Vietnam where there has been little or no environmental concern.”

We have actually been outsourcing our pollution to primarily China or Mexico. There is no sky-high fence to keep the air from crossing our border with Mexico, so we are breathing the polluted air being generated by companies in Mexico. In addition, the horrifically polluted air from China is actually coming to the U. S. on the trade winds.

The rest of the chapter 8 is a rather lengthy discussion of the differences between a privately owned vs. a publicly owned company with regard to practicing moral principles in the conduct of business.

Chapter 9 focuses on people, as “lean is a completely people centered business theory… lean management assumes the best and is based on empowerment and trust.” A culture of lean eliminates the conflict between management and labor. He presents examples of the “talent development” aspect of lean and now some companies evaluate people on the basis on their skills and knowledge in a four-square quadrant for both compensation and leadership. He concludes, “The companies with the best people working together on the best teams are the winners, and putting the best people into the best teams is done by principled leaders, not on the basis of accounting parameters.”

Chapter 10 considers “A Few Specifics,” and one of them that flies in the face of modern technology is the elimination of ERP systems as lean companies “see big IT systems as creators of significant levels of non-value adding waste. ERP systems create the need for planners, production schedulers, cost accountants and buyers. They require data collection and entry, as well as supervisors to oversee all of this, along with the costs of the software and hardware itself.” He provides examples of how ATC and West Paw Design use much simpler systems based on kanban (“a Japanese term mean something like ‘display card'”) He explains “Lean companies operate on a demand pull basis, rather than sophisticated forecasting models. Under this approach, they set a minimal inventory level in place and their purchasing and producing simply replenish that which has been used to meet actual customer demand…”

He concludes, “Perhaps the biggest reason lean companies avoid systems such as ERP is their cultural aversion to complexity. Complexity is the enemy of short cycle time, and it is the enemy of continuous improvement.”

The final two chapters contain a plea to take action and start leaning. He states, “You can’t change the basic trajectory of the business unless you change how you manage it…The gut wrenching, radical transformation in the business is not on the shop floor ? it is in the management office.” He states that successful lean leaders don’t come to this enlightened approach to management through logic, “they come to it through their principles…a principled leader is not content with the basic shop floor tools…they delve deeper and deeper into lean to find the zone of the management structures and philosophies need to allow them to manage by their principles and they dive even deeper into the core of lean culture until they fully understand and support the cultural rules need to turn the whole company into one driven by the leader’s strongly held beliefs.” He encourages companies to “learn why a strong culture is the linchpin of Lean success.”

The kernels of truth I briefly highlighted herein are why I recommend this book to everyone who wants to live and work by his higher principles while achieving greater success. If more American companies had the type of lean culture that Bill envisions, we truly could rebuild our manufacturing industry to make America great again and create jobs for millions of out of work Americans.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Environment, Innovation, Jobs, Lean, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »