Posts Tagged ‘trade policy’

« Older Entries

What do Manufacturers Need to Succeed and Grow?

Tuesday, November 12th, 2024

Now that we have re-elected President Trump for a second term to work on achieving his goal of Making America Great Again, it’s time to focus on how to rebuild America’s manufacturing industry because we can’t be great again without a strong domestic manufacturing industry.

My book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the Key to American Prosperity, provides detailed ways to rebuild American manufacturing based on my over 40 years in the manufacturing industry.  As a start on the path to rebuilding American manufacturing, here are a few suggestions on what manufacturers need to succeed and grow:

 Restoration of Patent Rights

 Manufacturers mainly fall into one of three groups:

 Original Equipment Manufacturers – selling a finished product such as a motor vehicle, ship, airplane, satellite, etc.

Suppliers – manufacturing a component, subsystem, or assembly for a finished product, such as a motor, power supply, semiconductor, etc.

Fabricators – perform a manufacturing process to make a particular part or assembly for a finished product such as an enclosure, bracket, panel, gasket, seal, etc. 

During my career, I have worked for OEMs and suppliers, but currently represent fabricators as a sales rep.  Each of these manufacturers requires a unique selling point (USP) or unique value proposition (UVP) that is part of a company’s marketing strategy to inform customers about how their brand, product, or service is superior to its competitors.

One or more patents are often an important component of the USP/UVP for products, components, and subsystems incorporating new technologies. While fabricators rarely have patents, many have trade secrets covering their manufacturing processes.

 My previous blog articles have shown how patent rights have been eroded by the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 and why patent rights must be restored to help technology-based companies have the strong patent protection they need to be successful. The threat of having their patent invalidated by the Patent Review and Trial Board (PTAB) established by the AIA is discouraging inventors from applying for a patent, and they are going to other countries to get their patents.  In addition, the lack of secure patent rights is also hindering the willingness of angel investors to invest in new technologies for startup companies. We must also continue to protect trade secrets because China uses espionage to steal both patented technologies and trade secrets.

 Protection from Unfair Trade Practices

In an increasingly interconnected global economy, American manufacturers face significant challenges, particularly from China’s trade practices. As concerns over unfair trade continue to rise, it’s crucial to understand the implications these practices have on U.S. businesses and the broader economy. Common examples of mercantilist trade practices by China are:  currency manipulation, rampant intellectual property theft, product dumping (selling products at below-market prices), and government subsidies for Chinese companies.  These unfair trade practices have created an uneven playing field. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, these practices have contributed to a substantial trade deficit with China, severely impacting American manufacturing sectors.

 Several industries have borne the brunt of these practices. For instance, the U.S. steel industry has faced aggressive pricing from Chinese manufacturers, which has led to factory closures and job losses across the country. In the textile sector, similar patterns have emerged, where Chinese imports flood the market at prices that domestic producers cannot match, resulting in significant downturns in American jobs.

The U.S. government has implemented various measures to counteract these unfair practices, such as tariffs and trade negotiations to foster fair competition. Addressing unfair trade practices is essential for the survival and growth of American manufacturing. We need fewer imports and more domestic production. Now is the time to take a stand and implement strategies that ensure a fair playing field for American manufacturers. The following strategies should be considered:

  • Establish Tariffs on all Chinese Products – read my previous article on “Why we Need Tariffs on Chinese Products”
  • Strengthening Enforcement of Trade Laws: Increasing the capacity of trade enforcement agencies to investigate and combat unfair practices can deter such actions.
  • Promoting Domestic Production: Incentives for manufacturers to produce locally can help rebuild industries affected by unfair competition.

 Access to Affordable Energy

In the modern manufacturing landscape, access to affordable energy is not just a necessity; it is a fundamental pillar of success. As industries strive to remain competitive in a global market, the cost of energy can significantly impact operational efficiency, profitability, and innovation. Energy costs represent a substantial portion of manufacturing expenses. From powering machinery to heating facilities, energy consumption is intrinsic to production processes. When energy prices rise, manufacturers face difficult choices: pass costs onto consumers, reduce labor, or cut back on investment in technology and innovation. These decisions can hinder growth and competitiveness.

Lower energy costs can lead to reduced overall production expenses, enabling companies to offer more competitive pricing and improve profit margins. For example, industries such as steel and chemicals, which are energy-intensive, benefit tremendously from stable, low-cost energy sources. This advantage can be a deciding factor for companies considering where to locate new facilities or expand existing operations.

Affordable energy is also crucial for fostering innovation. Manufacturers need access to reliable energy sources to invest in new technologies and processes that enhance efficiency and reduce waste. By keeping energy costs low, regions can attract and retain manufacturing businesses, leading to job creation and economic development.

Access to affordable energy is vital for the health and growth of the manufacturing industry. It influences operational efficiency, competitive advantage, innovation, and job creation. Policymakers, industry leaders, and communities must work together to foster an environment where affordable energy is a reality for all manufacturers.

 Reasonable Corporate Tax Rates

Tax policies that govern businesses can significantly influence manufacturers’ operational success and growth potential. Reasonable corporate tax rates are essential not only for maintaining profitability but also for fostering innovation and job creation.  Manufacturers often operate on thin margins, making it crucial to manage costs effectively. Lower tax liabilities provide manufacturers with the capital needed to expand operations, upgrade equipment, and develop new products.

High corporate tax rates can place an additional financial burden on these businesses, reducing their ability to reinvest profits into operations, technology, and workforce development. When manufacturers are forced to allocate a significant portion of their earnings to taxes, they may struggle to remain competitive, especially against international rivals with lower tax obligations. In a global marketplace, manufacturers often compete not only with domestic companies but also with foreign firms that may benefit from more favorable tax regimes.

By implementing reasonable corporate tax rates, governments can level the playing field, allowing American manufacturers to compete effectively against their international counterparts. This is particularly important in industries where price competitiveness is key to success.

Reasonable corporate tax rates can stimulate investment in the manufacturing sector. For example, when businesses have more disposable income, they are more likely to invest in research and development, which is essential for driving innovation and maintaining a competitive edge in the market.

To support the manufacturing sector, policymakers must consider tax reforms that prioritize reasonable corporate tax rates. This can include reducing rates, closing loopholes that disproportionately benefit large corporations, and creating incentives for small and medium-sized manufacturers. A balanced approach to taxation can foster a more equitable environment that encourages growth and investment across the sector.

Reasonable corporate tax rates are crucial for the health and vitality of the manufacturing industry. They enable manufacturers to invest in growth, create jobs, and compete effectively on a global scale. As policymakers consider tax reforms, it is essential to recognize the significant role that reasonable taxation plays in supporting American manufacturers and, by extension, the broader economy. A commitment to fair corporate tax rates will help ensure a robust and thriving manufacturing sector for years to come.

Regulatory Relief in Manufacturing

The burden of overregulation can stifle the potential of manufacturers, hindering productivity and competitiveness. Overregulation refers to the imposition of excessive or unnecessarily complex rules and standards that can burden businesses. For manufacturers, compliance with these regulations often requires significant time, resources, and financial investment. This can divert attention away from core operations, stifling creativity and limiting growth opportunities.

Excessive regulations can make it difficult for U.S. manufacturers to keep pace with competitors who operate in more business-friendly environments. Lowering the regulatory burden can enhance competitiveness, allowing manufacturers to focus on innovation and efficiency.

The costs associated with compliance can be substantial. From hiring specialized staff to implementing new technologies for regulatory adherence, manufacturers often find their budgets stretched thin. This financial strain can lead to higher product prices, which may result in lost sales and reduced market share. A more streamlined regulatory environment can foster a culture of innovation, allowing companies to focus on creating cutting-edge solutions that meet market demands.

While regulations are essential for ensuring safety, environmental protection, and fair labor practices, it is crucial to strike a balance. Policymakers should engage with industry leaders to understand the unique challenges manufacturers face and develop regulations that protect public interests without imposing undue burdens. Streamlining regulatory processes, simplifying compliance requirements, and providing clarity in regulations can significantly benefit manufacturers. A collaborative approach to regulation that prioritizes both public welfare and the needs of manufacturers will pave the way for a robust and resilient manufacturing sector.

Manufacturing is not only vital for the U.S. economy but also plays a crucial role in driving innovation, job creation, and economic prosperity. Manufacturing provides millions of Americans with jobs, both directly in manufacturing plants and indirectly through supporting industries such as logistics, finance, and technology. Manufacturing has a vast supply chain that includes raw materials, components, and finished goods, supporting a wide range of businesses and services across the country. The manufacturing sector is a hub of innovation and research and development (R&D), driving technological advancements and creating new products and processes that can benefit various industries.

Manufacturing exports contribute significantly to the U.S. trade balance, helping to generate revenue and create a favorable balance of trade. The manufacturing sector often leads to economic growth by attracting investment, generating tax revenue, and increasing productivity. Most importantly, a robust manufacturing sector is essential for national security, as it ensures domestic production of critical goods and reduces reliance on foreign sources during times of crisis.

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

Why We Need Tariffs on Chinese Imports

Tuesday, October 22nd, 2024

On Friday, October 18th, Sean Hannity interviewed Kevin O’Leary, one of the investors on Shark Tank, regarding his opinion of tariffs.  O’Leary has been such a strong proponent of free trade in the past.  In fact, even though I enjoy hearing about new inventions and products presented by the inventors and entrepreneurs on the program, I stopped watching the program because I was disgusted by how often they recommended that the product be manufactured in China. 

Therefore, I was astonished when Mr. O’Leary expressed his support for the tariffs President Trump has proposed, saying that tariffs are a good negotiating tool.  I didn’t have the ability to record his interview on Hannity’s show, so could only take notes. Thus, I can only paraphrase what he said instead of quoting him word for word.  Mr. O’Leary said that right now we don’t have a level playing field for trade with China. so, tariffs would be a way to level the playing field.  He shared that one of the companies in which he had invested went to China to manufacture their product. They spent about $400,000 on tooling, and everything was fine until the product volume got up to about five million. Then, a knock-off of the product made with their tooling appeared on the market under another company’s name and sold for 2/3 of their price. 

He said that nearly every company is wholly or partially owned by the Chinese government and they subsidize some of the costs of these companies to capture foreign markets.  He again said that tariffs would be a good way to fight against China’s unfair trade practices and level the playing field.

It was gratifying to see that someone of his stature in the industry has finally experienced what we in the marketing and sales trenches for American-made products and manufacturing services have been experiencing for over 20 years. I am just surprised that it took so long for him to come to this conclusion.

It only took a couple of years after China was granted Most Favored Nation status in the year 2000 to start seeing an unprecedented pruning of companies in the San Diego region because of the unlevel playing field we experienced in competing against Chinese companies. Buyers that weren’t willing to use vendors in the Midwest or East Coast were willing to go to China on the other side of the world to save money. Sourcing in China became the “in thing” to do.

It became more difficult for the American manufacturers we represented to compete against China, especially for the higher volume work to make plastic injection molded parts or die cast parts for commercial markets.  Our success became more and more limited to Original Equipment manufacturers making products for the military and defense industries that mandated “Buy America” as well as the lower volume work for niche commercial markets.  Sometimes, the quoted Chinese price was equal or a little more than what our American manufacturer had to pay for just the material to make the part. 

I started to keep a record of the companies that moved out of state or had gone out of business starting in January 2001 from my own database of customers and prospective customers. By 2003, I had documented 85 companies that had gone out of business, moved out of California, or sourced their manufacturing out of the country, mostly in China. I contacted the Chambers of Commerce of the other 17 cities in San Diego County and found out that none of them were tracking this data.

However, the loss of companies didn’t make the headlines in San Diego news because they were nearly all smaller companies with fewer than 50 employees.

In the spring of 2003, several legislators with whom I had campaigned for state assembly in the year 2000 asked me to provide them with the list of companies that were moving out of California. I turned the list into a report in an effort to make these legislators and other key policy makers aware of the seriousness of what was happening. I emailed this first report in March 2003 to legislators, local elected officials, industry leaders, and the local news media. The report got attention from a local radio talk show host, Roger Hedgecock, who immediately invited me to be a guest on his show. I prepared two more reports later that year and was invited on his show after each report was released.

I electronically published (e published) two to three reports a year from 2003 – 2010 and became a regular guest on the Roger Hedgecock show and a featured guest on several other regional radio shows. I also started writing opinion blog articles once or twice a month that were published by a local online news line and emailed to my own Constant Contact database.

My list had grown to nearly 200 companies by 2007, and I realized that this phenomenon was not just happening in San Diego or California, but was affecting the manufacturing industry in all of the United States. It became my passion to do what I could to save manufacturing in America because I firmly believe that if we don’t save manufacturing, we will lose our middle class as manufacturing jobs are the foundation of the middle class. That’s when I started to write my book, Can American Manufactur8ing be Saved? Why we should and how we can, which was published in 2009.

In addition to chapters that covered a brief history of manufacturing for 1790 to the present day and the role unions played in shaping American’s industrialization, I covered what was happening to manufacturing, what had been the effects of outsourcing offshore, why we should save American manufacturing, and my opinion of how we could save American manufacturing.

I wrote that I had learned that tariffs on foreign imports was one of the main sources of revenue for the Federal government until the initiation of the income tax in 1913. For more than the first 150 years of its history, the United States was a protectionist country in order to protect and grow its fledgling manufacturing, allowing the United States to become a major industrial power by the early 20th Century. 

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

To accomplish these objectives, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated during the UN Conference on Trade and Employment and signed by 23 countries at Geneva in 1947. GATT became the most effective instrument in the massive expansion of world trade in the second half of the 20th century.

GATT’s most important principle was trade without discrimination, in which member nations opened their markets equally to one another. A major benefit for GATT members was the reduction or elimination of tariffs. Once a country and one of its trading partners agreed to reduce a tariff, that tariff cut was automatically extended to all GATT members. GATT also established uniform customs regulations and sought to eliminate import quotas. By 1995, when the World Trade Organization replaced GATT, 125 nations had signed its agreements, governing 90 percent of world trade.

Our elected officials should have realized that they needed to change the trade policy when we started to lose market share to Japanese products, especially cars and consumer electronic products.

As a result of these free trade policies, the United States developed a trade deficit with the majority of its trading partners starting in 1980. Of course, some deficits were small, but they increased over time until they became enormous like our current deficit with China.

According to USA Facts, “Over 50% of U.S. trade in 2023 involved one of five partners: Mexico, Canada, China, Germany, and Japan.  In 2023, the US imported $1 trillion more in goods than it exported, marking the sixth straight year of a trade deficit in the trillions (adjusting for inflation) …The highest trade deficits were with China ($279 billion), Mexico ($152 billion), and Vietnam ($105 billion).”

The work of The Reshoring Initiative to educate manufacturers on how to use Total Cost of Ownership Analysis to determine the true cost of sourcing offshore vs. domestically has helped a great deal, and by 2023, the U.S. had recouped over a million of the 5.8 million manufacturing jobs that it lost between the year 2000 – 2010. 

In addition, increased interest by consumers in buying “Made in USA” products and more stringent “Buy America” regulations for military and defense procurement has helped save the American manufacturing industry.

It is an acknowledged fact that the tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration on steel and aluminum saved the U.S. steel industry.  Thus, it is now my opinion that if we want to significantly reduce our trade deficit with China, we must impose tariffs on all Chinese products imported into our country.  There is considerable debate about how high these tariffs should be.  I can tell you that for plastic injection molded parts or rubber molded parts, the tariff would need to be 200% to 300% to be competitive on piece pricing with China.  

I realize that this high a percentage of tariffs would never be approved, but the tariff percentage needs to be higher than a token 10% if we really want to achieve the goal of reducing our trade deficit significantly.

We can either continue down the path of increasing trade deficits and increasing national debt by allowing products to be imported by countries practicing predatory trade policies. Or, we can forge a new path by developing and implementing a national strategy that includes tariffs to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth, and strong domestic supply chains.

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

We must Revoke China’s Most Favored Nation Status

Tuesday, June 4th, 2024

From 1980 – 1999, China was granted Most Favored Nation status through presidential proclamation on an annual basis because the Trade Act of 1974 stated that “MFN status may not be conferred on a country with a nonmarket economy if that country maintains restrictive emigration policies” China was, and still is, a nonmarket economy and restricted emigration, but the Act allowed the president to “waive this prohibition on an annual basis if he certified that granting MFN status would promote freedom of emigration in that country.”

After the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, there was enough opposition to granting MFN status to China that the “House passed joint resolutions disapproving MFN for China in both 1991 and 1992,” but the Senate didn’t pass the joint resolution. Congress passed legislation in 1991 and 1992 that would have placed further conditions on China’s MFN status, but President Bush vetoed the legislation.

Prior to being elected, President Clinton announced he would link China’s MFN status to human rights progress beginning in 1994, but he reneged on his campaign promise and reversed himself:  “On June 2, 1995, President Clinton transmitted to Congress his intention to waive the emigration prohibition and extend MFN status to the People’s Republic of China for an additional year, beginning July 3, 1995.”

The annual granting of MFN status to China by a presidential waiver continued through 1998. Note that “On July 22, 1998, legislation was enacted which replaced the term “most-favored-nation” in certain U.S. statutes with the term “normal trade relations.”  This made it easier for Congress to make the fateful decision to extend “permanent normal trade relations,” or PNTR, to China when the Senate voted to give China permanent most-favored-nation status on September 19, 2000. This vote paved the way for China’s accession to the World Trade Organization.

This change in U.S. trade policy that eliminated potential tariff increases on Chinese imports resulted in American industries that were vulnerable to competing against lower Chinese prices experiencing greater employment loss, increased imports from China, and expanded share of the U.S. market by U.S. importers and Chinese exporters.

My three books and the hundreds of articles I’ve written since 2009 have described what has happened to U.S. manufacturing since 2001. Besides the loss of 5.8 million manufacturing jobs and the closure of an estimated 70,000 American manufacturers, American manufacturing shifted toward more high-tech, less labor-intensive production. However, as China upgraded their technology in the past few years, we started losing our high-tech manufacturing also.

Our trade deficits increased every year from $381 Billion in the year 2000 to $945 Billion in 2022 as shown by the below chart.

During the 116th Congress (2019-2020), Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) introduced S. 4609, China Trade Relations Act, on September 17, 2020, that “would strip China of its permanent most-favored-nation status—also known as Permanent Normal Trade Relations…It would reinstate “extending most-favored-nation status to China an annual decision for Congress and the president.” Unfortunately, this bill didn’t get out of Committee for a vote.

In his press release, Senator Cotton said, “Twenty years ago this week, the Senate gave a gift to the Chinese Communist Party by granting it permanent most-favored-nation status. That disastrous decision made the Party richer, but cost millions of American jobs. It’s time to protect American workers and take back our leverage over Beijing by withdrawing China’s permanent trade status…Congress could override the president’s extension of MFN by passing a joint resolution of disapproval.”

In the 117th Congress (2021-2022), Senator Cotton reintroduced this bill on March 17, 2021 as S.785, the China Trade Relations Act of 2021, with Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), and Rick Scott (R-Florida) as co-sponsors, but again, it never made it out of Committee for a vote.

This bill would have withdrawn “normal trade relations treatment from China and expands the bases of ineligibility for this treatment to include specified violations of human rights by China.

Specifically, during any period in which China engages in specified activities (e.g., using slave labor, performing forced abortion or sterilization, or hindering the free exercise of religion) (1) products from China shall not be eligible to receive nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations), (2) China may not participate in any U.S. program that extends credits or credit guarantees or investment guarantees, and (3) the President may not conclude any commercial agreement with China.”

Jon Toomey, Senior Vice President, Government Relations for the Coalition for a Prosperous America, recently informed me that during the 118th Congress, “several bills have been introduced to revoke or modify China’s Most Favored Nation (MFN) status, also known as Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR). Here are the key pieces of legislation:

S.125, China Trade Relations Act was introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Budd (R-NC), Rick Scott (R-FL), and J.D. Vance (R-OH) on January 26, 2023. This bill would revoke China’s PNTR status and revert to the pre-2001 system where China’s MFN status must be renewed annually by the President. It also expands the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to include disqualifying factors such as human rights abuses and economic espionage.

S. 906, Ending Normal Trade Relations with China Act introduced by Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO).
This bill aims to withdraw China’s MFN status within two years of its enactment, allowing the President to impose tariffs on Chinese goods. It is designed to protect American workers and address issues related to China’s economic practices and human rights abuses.

H.R. 638, China Trade Relations Act of 2023 introduced by Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ). (House Companion bill to S.125 above) This bill mirrors the Senate’s China Trade Relations Act, aiming to revoke China’s PNTR status and impose similar human rights and trade-related conditions for MFN status renewal.

Jon said, “These legislative efforts reflect a significant shift in U.S. policy towards China, focusing on addressing concerns related to human rights violations, economic espionage, and the impact of China’s trade practices on American jobs and industries.”

In a press release, Senators Cotton, Budd, and Scott made the following comments:

Senator Cotton:  China never deserved this privilege in the first place, and China certainly does not deserve it today. It’s time to protect American jobs and hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for their forced labor camps and egregious human rights violations.” 

Senator Scott: “There is no reason why the United States should be helping a communist government’s trade operation through preferential treatment and ‘most-favored-nation’ status. That is absolutely absurd when they are working against us. It is time to put American interests first, not the CCP, and reverse this antiquated law.” 

Senator Budd: “The Chinese Communist Party is not America’s friend, and it is not a force for good in the world. From human rights abuses to the theft of U.S. jobs and intellectual property, the CCP must be held accountable.”

What would be the effect on tariffs from revoking China’s MFN/PNTR status?  In the article titled, “Repealing China’s Most Favored Nation Status: A Guide,” Charles Benoit, Trade Counsel for the Coalition for a Prosperous America  explained “Merchandise made in a country the U.S. awards MFN/NTR status is eligible for America’s extremely low, almost negligible ‘base’ tariffs. These are set out in Column 1 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)… The tariff rates in Column 1 match the tariff rates in the U.S. Schedule of Concessions to the WTO… Schedules of Concessions promise maximum tariff rates to every other WTO Member, with individual maximum rates fixed to a list of around 6,000 product categories, covering everything imaginable. So, what we promise to every WTO country, we implement in Column 1 of the HTSUS…Most U.S. MFN tariffs are set at 0%, and if you average the tariffs we do have, they come out at 3.4%, the lowest of any WTO Member.

Without PNTR status, all products from China would by default be subject to the higher tariff. This would reduce off-shoring by discouraging American investors and corporations from doing business in China. It would increase reshoring, and the diminishing demand for Chinese goods would bolster the sales of American manufactured products.

China’s strategic goal is to dominate the sectors of economic growth that historically have held the key to world power:  transportation energy, information, and manufacturing. Their “Made in China 2025” plan is designed to dominate key technology sectors such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonic missiles, and 5G. They also plan to become the dominant power in space by 2049.

Passing either of the Senate bills and the companion House bill would only be the first step to restoring our supply chains and ending critical economic dependencies on China.” It’s time for us to stop treating China as a friend and recognize China as the enemy to our national sovereignty that it is.

Tags:
Posted in Trade Policy | No Comments »

Why Manufacturing is Important to the U.S. Economy

Tuesday, April 9th, 2024

The recent opinion article by Kenneth A. Reinert titled “Time to end America’s obsession with manufacturing” posted on Microsoft Start presents several reasons why our “obsession with manufacturing is misplaced” in his opinion  This article will focus on why manufacturing is important to the U.S. economy and why we need to be obsessed by manufacturing.

His first reason is that “for the high-income countries of the world, the share of manufacturing as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) is currently approximately 13 percent. In the U.S., it is approximately 11 percent, very close to the average of high-income countries.” In comparison, Germany’s manufacturing industry was

22.2 %, China was 28.4 %, and Japan was 20.6 % with the world average being 17.5 % in 2021, which was more like the percentage the U.S. previously had prior to so much manufacturing being offshored to Asia.

His second reason is that “in high-income countries, the share of the labor force in manufacturing …the share is approximately 13 percent. In the United States, it is approximately 8 percent. This reflects the increased labor productivity in American manufacturing.”

Even at this low percentage, manufacturing still “drives 20 percent of capital investment, 30 percent of productivity growth, 60 percent of exports, and 70 percent of business R&D.”

Manufacturing employment was relatively constant from 1960 through 1990, but began declining in the late 1990s.  However, manufacturing employment was at an all-time peak of 19.6 million in June 1979, representing 22 percent of the labor force. The biggest drop in employment occurred from 2000 – 2010 after China was granted Most Favored Nation status, and American manufacturers started offshoring manufacturing overseas to China. One-third of U.S. manufacturing workers (5.8 million people) lost their jobs as shown by the chart below:

Thirdly, Reinert says that ”services, or more precisely producer services, are at the heart of the increase in manufacturing productivity. Economists and business analysts have noted the increased “servitization” of manufacturing; it is now very difficult to disentangle manufacturing from producer services given their symbiotic relationship.”  The problem with this reasoning is that the less manufacturing that is done in the U.S., the fewer producer services you have to offer domestically and for export.  Services are even easier to offshore than manufacturing, so it is no surprise that many technical services in IT, customer service and communication have been offshored to India in particular.

His fourth reason is “manufacturing can no longer be envisioned as a single stage. Rather, it is spread out over multiple stages and countries in complicated global value chains (GVCs), held together by, you guessed it, producer services: transport, logistics, information and communication technologies, insurance and many others. Rather than a single stage, manufacturing is now a network.” 

The global value chains are exactly what caused the supply chain disruptions and shortages during the COVID pandemic.  Manufacturers learned that they can’t be dependent on components and parts being shipped from overseas to the U.S. to be assembled into their products. This is one of the main reasons more manufacturers are reshoring manufacturing to the U.S. Moreover, as a country, we can’t be dependent on another country, particularly China, for the components and parts that go into products for our defense and national security industries as well as our pharmaceutical and medical supply industries.

His fifth reason is that “what really matters for economic success is high value added… high value added tends to be found at the beginning and end of GVCs, in research and development, branding, design, distribution, marketing and after-sales services. The actual assembly stage of GVCs is often where the least value added is to be found.” The error of this reasoning is that R & D, distribution, and after-sales services have also been offshored to other countries so that our exports of advanced technology products has also been reduced.  In fact, “the trade deficit in advanced technology products is accelerating, growing from $128 billion in 2019, to $195 billion in 2021, to $244 billion in 2022.”

Reinert opines that “U.S. is currently involved in a bipartisan experiment to throw “an extraordinary amount of subsidies at particular manufacturing sectors, including semiconductors and green energy. Estimates of the total subsidies reach as high as $1 trillion. Manufacturing subsidies area way of being seen to be “doing something” in the economic realm and signal “standing up to China.” 

His conclusion is that “We need to end our obsession with manufacturing and focus on high value added wherever it is found. We also need to limit manufacturing subsides and allow them to be subject to WTO disciplines that the U.S. has developed and utilized intensively. Otherwise, long-run growth and prosperity will be diminished.”

The only correct opinion in his article is that “national security requires producer services along with manufacturing. There is a saying among military analysts that “amateurs talk strategy, but experts talk logistics.” These “logistics” are producer services. In the words of one researcher, these include “the construction, maintenance and operation of military bases; equipment maintenance; food service; transportation; communications and IT support; and supply chain management.” This is exactly why we need to strengthen our domestic manufacturing supply chain of goods and materials needed by our military and our defense industry and not a reason to end our obsession with manufacturing.

Last week, I discussed this article with a friend who is a fellow member of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, Dr. John R. Hansen. He is a retired economist who worked with the World Bank for over 30 years. We agreed with Reinert that using subsidies to drive manufacturing growth with can be expensive and wasteful, but believe he is wrong to dismiss the importance of manufacturing to America and wrong to assume that massive subsidies would be required for a renaissance in American manufacturing. I asked him to email me a few comments on Reinert’s article that I could include in my article.  He wrote:

“The importance of manufacturing for America lies in the following: We need to be able to produce and export internationally tradeable goods to pay for the goods we import. For the past two years, our trade deficit in goods has exceeded 1.0 trillion USD. Yes, we could continue borrowing and printing money to cover our trade deficits, but this is a dead-end strategy. The only sustainable strategy is to develop our ability to produce a surplus of internationally tradeable goods.

Producing more services is not the answer. They tend to be very labor intensive, and we cannot compete against countries like India where well-educated people receive very low wages compared to the average American. Furthermore, most services require physical presence.

The services highlighted by Reinhart suffer the same problems. They are very hard to export, especially if you don’t produce enough tradeable exports like manufactured goods into which the services can be embedded.

Our only real hope of paying for the imports we need is to first increase the production of tradeable manufactured and agricultural goods before we can stimulate the production of services that can be embedded in these goods. Both are highly tradeable, and we have a basic comparative advantage in both. We have abundant agricultural land, much of which is supplied with high technology that helps offset our higher labor costs. We also have one of the most advanced manufacturing sectors in the world.

The main reason we cannot reduce our imports and increase our exports of manufactured goods is that other countries producing such goods have currencies that are seriously undervalued compared to the US dollar. For example, the currencies of  China and Japan, two of our biggest competitors and sources of trade deficits, have currencies that are undervalued by 40% and 60% against the US dollar. This makes the prices of the goods that these countries produce 40-60% lower than if the foreign currencies were valued at exchange rates that would balance trade.”

John and I agree that the only real solution to this problem is the Market Access Charge that John has proposed and I have written about in several previous articles.  The MAC would do this by imposing a small charge that would be collected on all foreign-source money entering America’s financial market (averaging USD 90 trillion every year)  For more details, read my article , “Why a Market Access Charge is Urgently Needed,” from this past January. 

We need to stop the destruction of American industry and innovation, the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, and the collapse of communities.  We need to rebuild American manufacturing to create prosperity for our children and grandchildren.  

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

How Could we Reduce Inflation and Balance Foreign Trade & the Federal Budget?

Tuesday, August 1st, 2023

We are now nearing the end of the second year of high inflation, and many are wondering why has it been so hard for the Fed to kill inflation.  Could the Fed improve the efficiency of its inflation fighting and avoid causing a recession? Could it do so in a way that balances both foreign trade and the federal budget?

“Yes” is the answer given by one of my fellow members of the Coalition for a Prosperous American, John R. Hansen, PhD, Economic Advisor, The World Bank (retd.) and Founding Director of Americans Backing a Competitive Dollar (ABCD), He wrote me that he believes the Fed could do all of this plus fulfill its mandate of economic growth with stable prices more successfully – and brighten the future for all Americans, both now and for generations to come with only a small policy tweak.”

He explained that “each of America’s ten recessions since the late 1950s has been preceded by inflation and significant increases in the Fed Funds Rate (FFR). Higher interest rates and tighter credit obviously increase costs and reduce demand for American goods resulting in inflation. Reduced demand reduces both output from U.S. producers and growth. By increasing the cost of doing business, higher Fed interest rates force businesses to reduce output and fire workers, leading to recessions.”

In his opinion, “today’s Fed faces a key challenge because when the Fed raises the Fed Funds Rate, inflows of foreign-source money dilute the Fed’s efforts to reduce the availability and increase the cost of capital. This makes it harder for the Fed to control inflation. Also, excessive stocks of domestic credit tend to reduce the Fed’s ability to raise banks’ lending rates by normal margins.

He added, “When foreign speculators buy up dollars, they raise the dollar’s exchange rate. This makes foreign goods cheaper than those produced in America, destroying demand for American products both here and abroad. U.S. producers find it increasingly difficult to compete with foreign-made goods and many may go out of business.”

Dr. Hansen has developed a solution to moderate inflows of foreign money to make the Fed’s traditional inflation-fighting tools more effective. — a Market Access Charge (MAC) “on any purchase of U.S. dollar financial assets by a foreign entity or individual. As a one-time charge, the MAC would discourage short-term investors, overseas private investors, and return-sensitive official investors such as sovereign wealth fund managers from excessive speculation and trading in U.S. dollar assets.”

He believes that the Fed “can efficiently and effectively use the MAC as a tool to fix the undervaluation of foreign currencies against the dollar. Implementing the MAC could eliminate the U.S. budget deficit, sharply reduce the threat of future debt-ceiling crises, and increase resources available for important industrial policy initiatives, especially those related to national security such as chip manufacturing.”

Furthermore, he wrote that “implementing the MAC would markedly increase the Fed’s ability to control inflation with higher interest rates and tighter monetary policies. With the MAC in place, the Fed’s efforts would no longer generate the massive inflows of foreign-source money inflows that today are triggered by high U.S./foreign interest rate spreads.”

The MAC would be a small fee that would be collected by U.S. banks on all foreign-source money seeking entry to America’s financial markets. The fee, which would be adjusted periodically to eliminate the spread between higher average U.S. interest rates and lower average foreign interest rates, would sharply reduce the speculative gains of foreign-source money. Last year, $90 trillion worth came into America’s capital markets, which was about four times GDP!

Dr. Hansen’s latest calculations indicate that “a 2% MAC charge – about half the spread between U.S. and foreign interest rates that is drawing in foreign cash and making U.S. goods and workers too pricy to compete internationally – would generate about $1.8 trillion of new net revenues per year out of the pockets of foreign speculators – enough to eliminate the U.S. budget deficit and to allow America to start paying down its largest-in-the-world national debt.”

Such revenues would have fully covered the $1.4 trillion deficit for FY2022 with $400 billion left over to support important services, cut taxes, and/or pay down the national debt. Fewer Fed interest rate increases would lower the cost of borrowing for the government. Implementing the MAC tomorrow might not save America from defaulting on its debt this year, but doing so would greatly improve America’s fiscal position, sharply reduce the risk of a recession, stimulate economies of scale, reduce inflation, and reduce America’s growing debt.

Here are a few of the many benefits that America would enjoy if Congress were to approve this trade policy initiative – a policy based on 21st century realities, not 18th century theories.

  1. Reduce the incentives of foreign countries like China and Japan to manipulate the value of their currencies against the dollar.
  2. Increase domestic and foreign demand for Made-in-America goods, thereby creating at least 3-5 million well-paying middle-class jobs, mainly in manufacturing and associated sectors.
  3. Trigger domestic and foreign investments in American manufacturing that would increase output and productive efficiency.
  4. Generate about ten times as much Government revenue per year as import duties on merchandise trade currently generate. And unlike import duties, the MAC would be paid by foreigners, not by people living in America.
  5. Be far more effective than tariffs in reducing overall U.S. trade deficits with countries like China. Tariffs can be evaded rather easily with a large number of widely known tricks like shipping through third countries, rebranding, and under-invoicing.
  6. Make it possible for the U.S. Government to implement important national security, infrastructure, environmental protection, and social investments without raising taxes or increasing the public debt.
  7. Reducing America’s debt service burden would further increase the Government’s ability to invest in high priority programs such as skills training, childcare, and other initiatives that would help the average American and increase America’s productivity without increasing the public debt.
  8. By implementing the MAC, America could roughly double its current rate of economic growth. The MAC would stimulate domestic production and exports while reducing our excessive dependence on imports.

Dr. Hansen and the Coalition for a Prosperous America believe that the MAC would be sufficient to discourage foreign inflows of investment with no material impact on foreign direct investment in factories and other directly productive activities. The MAC or something like it is urgently needed. Implementing the MAC would greatly improve America’s fiscal position, sharply reduce the risk of a recession, stimulate economies of scale, reduce inflation, and reduce America’s growing debt.  Our top priority today should be to protect our national security to remain a free country to ensure the well-being and safety of our children and grandchildren in the future.  

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

Congress Must Stop Abuse of De Minimis Imports

Tuesday, June 20th, 2023

When you order a product online without country-of-origin information being provided, the product may be sent directly to you by a company in a foreign country.  If the product is under $800 in value, it isn’t inspected by Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and no duties or tariffs are charged. How does this happen?

A White Paper, titled “Trade and Tariffs” on the website of the Coalition for a Prosperous America explains: “De minimis imports are the gateway for every fly-by-night foreign vendor to ship directly into the United States. When a package receives de minimis treatment, it arrives without the need of a customs broker or bond, without paying any tariffs or taxes, and without meaningful possibility of regulatory oversight.” [“de minimis” is Latin for “too trivial or minor to merit consideration.”]

The de minimis rule was added as Section 321 to the Tariff Act of 1930…The 1938 Congress set low-dollar thresholds for three different importation scenarios, assigning a $5 threshold for bonafide gifts and personal effects travelers brought with them, and a $1 de minimis for any other situation…There are three types of import situations covered by De minimis:

  1. ‘Bona fide gifts’ mailed to Americans from their friends and family abroad
  2. Articles accompanying travelers from abroad for household use
  3. A “catch all” anything else provision to ensure no undue burden was spent.”

The law’s opening line states its purpose: “to avoid expense and inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of revenue that would otherwise be collected.” It was meant to serve as an administrative tool to ensure that customs officers aren’t forced to do assessments on low-value goods which would end up costing the government more money than they would generate.”

“ For regular imports, the law requires importers to provide Customs & Border Protection (CBP) an advance manifest of the incoming cargo describing it. But de minimis shipments, including millions of e-commerce packages, typically arrive with no advance information. The information scrawled on the packages is often incomplete and unverifiable. CBP has to process a whopping 2 million of these shipments daily and does not have the capability to detect and seize illicit and dangerous goods.” Goods eligible for de minimis treatment enter the U.S. free of duties and taxes.

For most of Section 321’s history, the lowest threshold of $1 only rose to $5 by the 1990s. However, de minimis was increased to $200 by Congress in 1994, and in 2015, Congress raised the de minimis threshold to a whopping $800 after intense lobbying by express consignment companies like FedEx and UPS and e-commerce sites like Amazon and eBay. In comparison, China’s de minimis is 50 yuan, which is less than $8 USD.

The CPA paper states, “The predictable result is a major calamity putting U.S. producers and traditional retailers out of business and destroying jobs. Our permissiveness is also causing lawlessness at the ports, allowing a tidal wave of counterfeit and dangerous goods to flood in.”

Not only are U.S. companies and workers subjected to a new level of job-destroying competition but dangerous illicit drugs, such as fentanyl, and counterfeit goods are shipped directly to US consumers while evading detection.

In 2022, the U. S. had a trade deficit with China of $382.9 billion up from $353.4 billion in 2021, but down from a high of $418.2 billion in 2018. The question is:  If de minimis imports were counted, wouldn’t they increase our trade deficit with China?

The answer is “yes.”  On May 15, 2023, Jeff Ferry, CPA’s Economist, released an analysis that found that the impact of de minimis on the U.S. economy is large and getting larger.  Key findings were:

  • “Our new estimate puts de minimis China revenue last year at $187.9 billion.
  • The uncounted imports increase the actual 2022 U.S. goods trade deficit by 16% from $1.19 trillion to $1.38 trillion, representing some 8.3 million lost U.S. jobs.
  • De minimis imports are deeply damaging to U.S. manufacturing industry and U.S. brick and mortar retailers.
  • With the incursion of Chinese-owned retailers like Shein and Temu into the U.S. market, we may be witnessing a historic shift away from U.S.-owned e-commerce giants like Amazon.”

CPA has been urging Congress to fix the problem of de minimis by lowering the threshold back to $9 ($5, but adjusted for inflation). The good news is that some Senators and Congressional Representatives have listened to CPA’s statement of the problem and introduced bills that would partially rectify the problems caused by de minimis.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023, U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Neal Dunn (R-FL) introduced  the Import Security and Fairness Act in the House.  U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a companion bill of the same name into the Senate. The purpose of the bills is “to stop China and Russia from exploiting the de minimis threshold and require Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect more information on de minimis shipments.”

While these House/Senate companion bills don’t reduce the dollar value of de minimis, they restrict what countries are allowed to ship de minimis shipments.  The Blumenauer/Dunn House Act states:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL. —An article may not be admitted free of duty or tax under the authority provided by subsection (a)(2)(C) if the country of origin of such article, or the country from which such article is shipped, is—

‘‘(A) a nonmarket economy country (as such term is defined in section 771(18)); and

‘‘(B) a country included in the priority watch list (as such term is defined in section 182(g)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.32242(g)(3))).”

According to an article titled, “Is China a Non-Market Economy?” datedApril 2, 2019  by Daniel Griswold and Danielle Parks of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University,  “The US Department of Commerce currently labels 11 countries as NMEs: Belarus, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Moldova, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Turkmenistan. In the past, some countries designated as NMEs were then converted to market economies (MEs), such as Poland (1993), Russia (2002), and Ukraine (2006).” This means that imports from China would not be admitted free of duty or tax.

With regard to the priority watch list or “Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974…requires the U.S. Trade Representative to identify countries that deny adequate and effective IP protections or fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on IP protection.” China is the county that most flagrantly violates U. S. Intellectual Property rights, so is most certainly on the watch list.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 Senators Bill Cassidy, (R-LA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and JD Vance (R-OH) introduced the De minimis Reciprocity Act of 2023 “to stop Communist China and other countries from abusing U.S. trade laws that allow small dollar imports into the U.S. duty free.”

Senator Cassidy’s press release states, “The bill would bar Chinese exports from entry via the expedited “de minimis” channel and reduce the threshold for duty-free imports into the U.S. to an amount that matches the threshold our trade partners use, ensuring reciprocity and increasing transparency at our borders.”

Additionally, “The De Minimis Reciprocity Act would also:

  • Exclude untrustworthy countries from using the ‘trusted’ de minimis channel. 
  • Only allow express carriers to facilitate de minimis imports into the U.S. to help better at stop counterfeits and fentanyl at the border.
  • Require more information on every package entering the U.S.
  • Use the revenue proceeds to establish a fund for reshoring industry from China.” 

While China may be the most egregious in taking advantage of de minimis shipments, we also have trade deficits with India, Vietnam, South Korea, and many other countries.  I am sure that uncounted de minimis shipments from these other countries would increase our trade deficits for those countries also.   I personally would like to see a much simpler bill that incorporates CPA’s recommendation of reducing de minimis shipments to $9 for every country.  In my opinion, this is the only fair, long-term solution.    

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

How to Buy More Made in USA Products

Tuesday, March 21st, 2023

More than 70% (72%) of American consumers prefer American-made products and nearly half (48%) say they’d be willing to pay around 10–20% more. An exclusive poll about buy-American shopping preferences from Retail Brew and The Harris Poll was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,986 US adults from July 22–24, 2022.

Overwhelmingly, Americans want to know where their products are made, and they can do so at retail stores by looking for a “Made in USA” label when they shop in person.  However, when they shop online, there is no country of original information provided in the description of a product by the top online e-commerce companies, Amazon, eBay, and Etsy.

In 2020, The COOL Online Act  (S. 3707) was introduced by Senator Tammy Baldwin to require a prominent country-of-origin description for all products sold online as well as clear disclosure of the country in which the seller of the product is located. However, big retailers including Amazon want to hide where their products are coming from and lobbied to prevent this bill from being voted on by the Senate.  The text of this bill was added as an amendment to the Endless Frontier Act (S. 1260), which passed the Senate, but was not voted on by the House.  A similar bill is planned to be introduced this year.

In addition, all of the e-commerce companies take advantage of the “De Minimis” rule, created by Congress as  Section 321 to the Tariff Act of 1930. “De Minimis” is Latin for “too trivial or minor to merit consideration.” Its purpose was “to avoid expense and inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of revenue that would otherwise be collected.”

A White Paper by the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) states, “The 1938 Congress set low-dollar thresholds for three different importation scenarios, assigning a $5 threshold for bona fide gifts and personal effects travelers brought with them, and a $1 de minimis for  any other situation…Congress raised our de minimis threshold to a whopping $800 in 2015. China’s is 50 yuan, which is less than $8.  Goods eligible for de minimis treatment enter the U.S. free of duties and taxes…Express consignment companies like FedEx and UPS and e-commerce sites like Amazon and eBay are the primary actors lobbying to keep de minimis as a giant open-border backdoor.

“U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) itself acknowledges that raising the de minimis threshold

changed the very nature of international trade.” Under the traditional paradigm, businesses would contract foreign manufacturers, entering into supply contracts, importing particular products by the container-load, and then distribute products to domestic retailers. “Large shipments would be consigned to a single purchaser, and typically consist of the same or similar goods. Under the new paradigm, that same shipping container has individual packages destined for hundreds of individual customers who are fulfilling the legal role of “importer…”

“For regular imports, the law requires importers to provide Customs & Border Protection (CBP) an advance manifest of the incoming cargo describing it. But de minimis shipments, including millions of e-commerce packages, typically arrive with no advance information.”

CPA recommends that Congress “fix this by lowering the threshold back to $9 ($5, but adjusted for inflation).”

One company is leading the effort to adopt a private sector solution.  Don Buckner Sr., recently contacted me about the new online marketplace he is developing to provide consumers with easy access to domestic manufactured products. MadeInUSA.com.  Customers will be able to identify and search by three sourcing categories: Made in USA, Made in USA with US & Global Materials, and Assembled in the USA. They may also search by a Business Certification such as Veteran, Women, Minority, GSA Holder, or Small Business. This will increase a company’s visibility, allowing access to opportunities they might not otherwise have.  Vendors must certify that products displayed on the site are produced in compliance with the Federal Trade Commission Made in USA claim. Strict adherence is required for all vendors.  MadeInUSA is now registering vendors and products at https://madeinusa.com/vendor.  The website is scheduled to go live in late 2023.

I asked what will make his website different from other websites offering Made in USA products, and

Don said, “MadeInUSA.com is an Enterprise level eCommerce marketplace specifically designed to highlight and promote vendors to domestically produced products. MadeInUSA.com is built using the latest technology and is the most comprehensive, secure, online resource for consumers and corporate buyers  As the premier and trusted online marketplace for products made in the USA, the site offers a doorway between U.S. manufacturers and the world.”

Customers will be able to identify and search vendors by one of three categories: Made in USA, Made in USA with US & Global Materials, and Assembled in the USA. They may also search for vendors by a Business Certification such as Veteran, Women, Minority, GSA Holder, or Small Business. This will increase a company’s visibility, allowing access to opportunities they might not otherwise have.

Don explained, “The MadeInUSA.com eCommerce platform is based on a drop ship model and will collect and pay all sales tax and shipping costs. All the manufacturers must do is build it and box it”

The website is now open for vendor applications to offer products directly to consumers. Vendors may list products for free but must certify that products displayed on the site are produced in compliance with the FTC Made in USA claim. Strict adherence is required for all vendors. Manufacturers and vendors can register by visiting https://madeinusa.com/vendor to submit an application.   

U.S. consumers prefer to buy domestic products.  Today, it is hard for consumers to do that and easy for imports to by-pass customs duties.  Congress has legislators working to fix labeling and import duties. I applaud the focus of Don Buckner to reconnect U.S. manufacturers to the U.S. consumers and to create American jobs through increased demand for USA branded products. 

Industry Reimagined 2030 is working with national associations and the private sector to increase consumer purchases of U.S. goods. We share the same commitment that buying USA-made products isn’t just patriotic, it’s an investment into our communities, our labor force, and our economy.  We aim to increase U.S. purchases by $500 billion that will result in 2 million jobs by 2030.  

Tags:,
Posted in Country of Origin, Made in America, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

How to Have a Secure Supply Chain

Tuesday, May 10th, 2022

For more than the first 150 years of its history, the United States was a protectionist country in order to protect its fledgling manufacturing industries and then gain preeminence as an industrial nation in the 20th century.  We had secure supply chain until after WWII because we imported very little and were pretty much self-sufficient for consumer goods as well as good for our national defense.

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

To accomplish these objectives, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated during the UN Conference on Trade and Employment. Originally signed by 23 countries at Geneva in 1947, GATT became the most effective instrument in the massive expansion of world trade in the second half of the 20th century.

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

Unfortunately, our government leaders didn’t pay attention to the effect this was having on American businesses, and we started having a trade deficit in 1980 because of greater imports from Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. 

When NAFTA went into effect in 1994, it started the trend of moving manufacturing outside the U.S.  When the World Trade Organization was formed in 1995, tariffs were reduced between all member countries.  However, after President Clinton granted China Most Favored Nation status in the year 2000 and China was allowed to become a member of the WTO, the great exodus to setting up manufacturing in China began, and the trade deficit sky rocketed. According to Alan Uke’s book, Buying Back America, the United States has a trade deficit with 88 countries—some deficits are small, but some are enormous, such as China. 

As a result, over 70,000 manufacturing sites closed in the past 25 years, and at the low point in 2010, we had lost 5.8 million lost middle-income manufacturing jobs.

Globalization of U.S. Supply Chains Failed

When the COVID pandemic hit, it sent shock waves throughout the world of manufacturing. Too late, we realized that we had become 70 to 95% import dependent, primarily on China.  It was impossible to scale up our domestic supply chain fast enough for PPE goods and pharmaceuticals.  

In an article, “It’s About Time to Build Regional Supply Chains,” on March 30, 2022 on Industry Week, Christopher S. Tang wrote, “I do believe most global supply chains are going to end. They had a good run over the last few decades, enabling Western companies to grow profitably and helping developing countries alleviate poverty. But concurrent and unprecedented events have blown apart their cost efficiency…Decades of outsourcing and offshoring have hollowed out the U.S. manufacturing sector. Building domestic supply chains in the U.S. can be time-consuming and cost-ineffective…Small and medium-sized manufacturers are facing the reality that there will inevitably be more disruptions in the future and they must prepare themselves now by strategically evaluating and mitigating their supply chain risks.”

This crisis could have been prevented if more American Manufacturers had utilized Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™ that Harry Moser made available for free in 2010 when he founded the Reshoring Initiative. Mr. Moser’s TCO Estimator has been the right tool to facilitate returning manufacturing to America. It actually includes calculations for the “hidden costs of doing business offshore,” such as Intellectual Property risk, political instability risk, effect on innovation, product liability risk, annual wage inflation, and currency appreciation.

In my experience as a sales rep, most companies only consider the quoted piece price or landed cost, at best. Because of inaccurate data, many companies make the decision to offshore on the basis of faulty assumptions. Some faulty assumptions are:  Overseas laws will protect IP, longer lead times won’t affect costs much, travel costs won’t be significant, communication won’t be a problem, and quality will be just as good as USA. The reality is that many companies are saving less than they expected, and in some cases, the hidden costs exceed the anticipated cost savings.

We need to change the main considerations for selecting suppliers from one based on the lowest price to other considerations, such as

  • Location
  • Transportation alternatives
  • Inventory costs and control
  • Quality controls
  • Reserve capacity of supplier
  • Responsiveness of supplier
  • Technological depth of supplier

Choosing the right location is the most critical choice. The choices are: Made in USA, “Offshoring” to China or another location in Asia, or nearsourcing to Mexico or Canada. The location of your customers influences the choice of manufacturing location.  Here are some variables to consider:

  • Where are your customers? USA, Asia, Europe, Latin America
  • How high is your labor content?
  • Is your annual production volume forecast low, medium, or high?
  • Do you have low vs. high product mix?
  • What certifications are required?  Example:  FDA, U/L, Mil Spec, ISO 9100, AS9100, etc.  

There are current manufacturing trends that are also influencing supplier choice.  Some of these are:

  • Wages rising in China
  • Increased “Made in USA” demand by government agencies and American consumers
  • Additive Manufacturing
  • Use of Industry 4.0 by suppliers (Automation, Robotics, Industrial Internet of Things (IIOT)

Some of the advantages of sourcing in the USA are:

  • No Intellectual Property infringement
  • Ease of communication
  • Flexible delivery by means of reliable transportation
  • Smoother design changes
  • Lower cost of inventory
  • Higher quality parts
  • Lower travel expenses
  • Favorable Purchase Order and Credit Terms

In today’s manufacturing supply chain, Reshoring helps companies have:

  • Faster lead times: 49-50% reduction
  • Delivery accuracy: 30-40% improved
  • Ability to respond swiftly to unforeseen disruptions
  • Handle volatile demand as closer proximity to customers drives agility 
  • Increased competitiveness
  • Better serving local markets while maintaining low costs

I strongly believe that if more companies would learn to understand and utilize the Reshoring Initiative’s TCO estimator (free at www.reshorenow.org), they would realize that the best value for their company is to source their parts, assemblies, and products in America.

America is at a crossroads. We can either continue down the path of increasing trade deficits, increasing national debt, and loss of manufacturing jobs 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 create a strong, secure domestic supply chain.

Doing this will help us achieve the vision of Industry Reimagined 2030 to change the national narrative of American manufacturing from a prevailing worldview of “inevitable decline” to one of “vibrant opportunity.”

If enough manufacturing is “reshored” from China, we would drastically reduce our national average annual trade deficit of more than $700 billion.  By 2030, we could also add five million middle-income manufacturing workers to the American workforce. 

Tags:,
Posted in General | No Comments »

CPA Annual Trade Conference was a Virtual Success

Wednesday, April 7th, 2021

The Coalition for a Prosperous America held its annual trade conference virtually for the first time on March 23 – 26, 2021. I had the pleasure of attending the annual trade conference in person six years in a row when it was held in Washington, D. C., but last year’s conference had to be canceled on short notice because of COVID shutdowns.  This year’s virtual conference was free to all CPA members and the program ran from 11 AM – 4 PM ET each day. The conference was a huge success because of the valuable content of the sessions, lack of technical glitches, and Melissa Tallman’s hard work.

On the first morning, CEO Michael Stumo and Board Chairman Zach Mottl of Atlas Tool welcomed everyone and gave an overview of the conference.  Michael Stumo outlined the following CPA’s priorities for 2021:

  • Promote reshoring of pharmaceutical and health care products
  • Fix overvalued dollar
  • Support customs enforcement vs. lawlessness
  • Create model tariff schedule to increase tariffs across the board  
  • Support decoupling from China
  • Focus on domestic production of energy, oil, gas, and renewables, such as solar
  • Continue Job Quality Index, now licensed to Bloomberg and Yahoo Business
  • Show how job quality affects minorities
  • Support reshoring of semiconductors
  • Support Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef, pork, and online sales

The first session was a panel on Reshoring Healthcare, moderated by Rosemary Gibson, author of China RX.  Panelists were, Eric Edwards, Phlow Pharmaceuticals, Usman Ahmed, Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Jon Toomey, CPA Government Relations Director, and Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), pre-recorded.

Rep Hartzler said in October 2019, she and Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) introduced H.R. 4710, the Pharmaceutical Independent Long-Term Readiness Reform Act. “The legislation requires the Department of Defense to identify the vulnerabilities faced by our country’s dependence on Chinese pharmaceuticals, and to only purchase American-made raw materials, medicines, and vaccines for the military.” While the bill wasn’t passed in the last session, they were able to get part of it into the NDAA for 2021.

Eric Edwards said he founded Phlow last year as a public benefit corporation to use advanced manufacturing technology to produce critical and essential drugs using strategic partnerships with Civica Rx, Virginia Commonwealth University’s Medicines for All Institute, and AMPAC Fine Chemicals to make chemical precursor ingredients, active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and finished dosage forms for over a dozen essential medicines to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related illnesses.

He said, “In May 2020, we were awarded federal funding of $354 million for advanced manufacturing of America’s most essential medicines from BARDA, ASPR, and DHHS  [Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (), part of the office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]  We now have 20 employees and will be up to 50 by mid-year, ramping up to 350 by next year when we are in full production.”

Usman Ahmed shared that Nexus was founded in 2003 by his parents in Lincolnshire, Illinois, using contract manufacturers in the United States and Europe difficult-to-manufacture, high-quality specialty and generic drugs. However, when critical drug shortages became apparent at the start of the COVID pandemic, they made plans to build their own manufacturing plant in Pleasant Prairie, WI. When the plant opens soon, they will shift some of the manufacturing in-house to make medications including those used in critical care, cardiac care and the central nervous system.

Rosemary Gibson said that the research for her book revealed that 80% of pharmaceuticals are made in China, so there is a critical need to reshore.  Last October, the FDA published a list of 227 drug and biological product essential medicines, as well as a list of 96 device medical countermeasures.

The next session was “How Can a Currency Policy Contribute to ‘Build Back Better” Industrial Strategy,” moderated by CPA board member Marc Fasteau.  Panelists were, Joe Gagnon, Senior Fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics, Brian O’Shaungnessy, Chairman of Revere Copper, Jeff Ferry, CPA Economist, and Robert Scott, Senior Economist and Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute.

Jeff Ferry stated that the value of the U.S. dollar has gone up by 30% since 2013, and the overvalued dollar depresses our economy and increases our trade deficit. Each one-billion-dollar trade deficit costs 6,000 jobs, so our 2020 deficit of ___ cost four million jobs.  Goss capital inflows in 2020 were $40 billion. The dollar is currently overvalued by 24.6%.  If the dollar was devalued by 6%/year, it would achieve trade balance in four years and add 3.7 million jobs and add 1% to the national GDP.

Brian O’Shaughnessy said that Revere was founded by Paul Revere in 1801 so may be the oldest company in the U.S. The Revere line of cookware was sold off in 1989, so now Revere makes copper sheet, plate and strip for industrial applications.  He said, “all of our principal competitors have gone bankrupt because of overvalued dollar making it difficult to compete in the global marketplace, and foreign competition has prevented investment.”

Joe Gagnon stated that the trade deficits prove that we have an overvalue dollar, and the dollar has been overvalued for a long time.  We need to have a countervailing currency intervention to address the overvalued dollar.  Other countries are buying U.S. currency to build dollar reserves, and the U.S. could buy foreign currencies.  We could also tax foreign purchases of U. S. dollars.

Rob Scott discussed past actions to rebalance currency and said that from 2000 – 2013, foreign government currency manipulation contributed to the problem and from 2014 to the present, private investors buying dollars and other U.S. assets have added to the problem.  He said, “Action is needed now to rebalance the overvalue dollar to create good paying jobs for non-college graduates.  The simplest way is to charge a tax on net purchases of assets” as proposed by the Market Access Charge that CPA has endorsed.

The first day ended with a report by CPA Government Relations Director, Jon Toomey, giving an inside view of what to expect in 2021. Future articles will cover the rest of the conference.

The major sponsors for the conference were:  MFGgear™, The Consilio Group, IT Guidepoint, SK International, and Amodex. Other sponsors were Liberty Tabletop, MadeinAmericaAgain.org, MadeinAmerica.com and my book Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity.

Tags:, ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Who Are My Heroes? Part One

Tuesday, April 21st, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Older Entries