Posts Tagged ‘trade policy’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Are Tariffs Reducing the National Debt and Federal Deficit?

Wednesday, March 6th, 2019

There is increasing evidence that Trump’s tariffs are working to expand American manufacturing and create jobs.

According to the February 11, 2019 U.S. Manufacturing Technology Order Report press release of The Association for Manufacturing Technology, “The year- end order total for 2018 was $5.5 billion, up 19 percent from the annual sum for 2017…’We finished a fantastic run up in manufacturing technology orders during 2018, with most analysts looking for good growth in units and modest growth in revenue in 2019,” said AMT President Doug Woods.”

In an Op-Ed for The Hill on February 12, 2019, Michael Stumo, CEO of the coalition for a Prosperous America, wrote: “There’s no doubt that America’s manufacturers are currently rebounding. The tariffs that President Trump imposed a year ago on steel, aluminum, solar panels and washing machines have already created more than 11,000 new jobs.”

In 2016 when he was a candidate, Trump told the Washington Post that he could make the U.S. debt-free “over a period of eight years.” Thus, the question is:  Are Trump’s tariffs reducing the Federal budget deficit and paying down the national debt?

For clarity, the Federal budget deficit is the annual difference between what the federal government takes in as revenue and what it spends for expenses. The U. S. has run a federal budget deficit every year since 2001 by spending more than it raises. The national debt is the total amount of money that has been borrowed and not yet repaid.  

At 7 PM on March 6, 2019 when I finished writing this article, the national debt was $22.109 trillion, and the Federal budget deficit was at $846.945 billion according to the U. S. National debt clock website (it registers an increase every second.)  In a CNN Business article by Lydia DePillis, on January 4, 2019, “The US national debt stood at $21.974 trillion at the end of 2018, more than $2 trillion higher than when President Donald Trump took office, according to numbers released Thursday by the Treasury Department.” On the other hand, the national debt nearly doubled under Obama’s eight-years as President going from $10.626 trillion when he was sworn on January 20, 2009 to $19.947 trillion when he left on January 20, 2017.

A Bloomberg article by Mark Niquette on January 17, 2019, states, “According to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, more than $13 billion in duties imposed by the Trump administration were assessed on imported goods as of Dec. 18…Customs and Border Protection collects the tariffs based on the price paid for shipments and the tariff rate in effect, and duties are charged when shipments are released into the U.S. The assessed amount now tops $13 billion, with $8 billion coming from the duties on Chinese goods…The duties are deposited in the U.S. Treasury.”

Thus, although President Trump claims that the tariffs are being paid by China and other countries, the tariffs are actually being paid to the U. S. Treasury by companies that import products.   

As I wrote in my last article, tariffs were a large source of revenue for the U.S. government for over a hundred years. However, in 1913, the 16th Amendment established Congress’s right to impose a federal income tax, and tariffs have represented a smaller proportion of receipts ever since. 

According to an article on the Center for Strategic International Studies website, “As of 2017, 47.9 percent of revenue came from individual income taxes, 35 percent from payroll taxes, 9 percent from corporate income taxes, 5.6 percent from other taxes, and 2.5 percent from excise taxes (taxes on specific goods like gas).”  Their projections for 2018 were that of the “$3.34 trillion in revenue in FY 2018, just $40.437 billion of that is projected to come from customs duties, representing 1.21 percent of the government’s total expected receipts.”

Since nearly half of tax revenue comes from individuals, the growth of high-paying manufacturing jobs as American manufacturing expands will generate more tax revenue and lower budget deficits.  Most people are unaware that it takes four to five persons paying taxes to pay for the unemployment benefits for one out of work person. Therefore, more people working and paying taxes lowers the Federal government’s expenses for unemployment compensation.  In turn, more people working stimulates the economy through their increased spending and consumption.

In fact, economic growth and the tariffs have helped make up for the decline in corporate tax revenue as a result of the reduction of corporate tax rates from a high of 34 percent down to 21 percent. A Breitbart article by John Carney on January 9,2019 states, “Revenue from taxes on corporate profits declined by $9 billion or 15 percent due to the deep cuts in corporate tax rates…The decline in corporate tax revenue, however, was nearly entirely offset by a rise in tariff revenue. These jumped by $8 billion, largely because of new tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese imports imposed by the Trump Administration last year.”

Carney wrote, “Fiscal year i2019 will be the first to fully incorporate the tax cuts passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump in 2017. The first quarter’s numbers show that tax receipts have not declined but are in fact rising, albeit at a slower pace than spending. Which means that thanks to the economic acceleration of 2018, tax cuts are close to achieving the Trump administration’s projection that they would pay for themselves.”

We know that President Trump has proposed a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion of imports from China and another 25 percent tariff on all cars and car parts.  Even if the proposed tariffs get up the projected $140 billion, it would still be a long way from making up for the projected budget deficits to pay down the Federal budget deficit, much less start to pay down the national debt.

However, saving the American steel and aluminum industries, fostering the expansion of our domestic manufacturing industry, and preventing the loss of more manufacturing being transferred offshore to China is still reason enough to impose the tariffs on steel and aluminum and justify the additional tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods.  

Tags:,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Tariffs Benefit the American Manufacturing Industry

Wednesday, February 13th, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Tuesday, December 4th, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, November 27th, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, May 31st, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Will Help Rebuild American Manufacturing

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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 »

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 »

CPA Criticizes Peterson Report on Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

Sunday, March 13th, 2016

On January 25, 2016, the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) released a report  on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) promptly released their commentary on the Peterson Institute report the same day, which was based on oral and written testimony CEO Michael Stumo had given to the U. S. International Trade Commission on January   15, 2016.

The Peterson Institute used the “”computable general equilibrium (CGE) model.” I’m not an economist. I live and work in the real world of manufacturing. Thus, I am not familiar with some of the terms economists use for economic models, and had not heard of this term previously. I try to find explanations that make sense, but even the Wikipedia definition was complex; “A CGE model consists of (a) equations describing model variables and (b) a database (usually very detailed) consistent with the model equations… CGE models are useful whenever we wish to estimate the effect of changes in one part of the economy upon the rest. For example, a tax on flour might affect bread prices, the CPI, and hence perhaps wages and employment. They have been used widely to analyse trade policy.”

The World Bank states, “Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models offer a comprehensive way of modeling the overall impact of policy changes on the economy… However, CGEs are significantly affected by the assumptions that they are based on which, depending on their definition, can impact on the results.”

CPA criticized the PIIE for using “the controversial computable general equilibrium (CGE) model to analyze the TPP rather than models that produce less optimistic results.” Stumo stated that the CGE model is increasingly recognized as unreliable because:

Untrue Facts Assumed ? “full employment always exists, trade is in balance, that wages and productivity stay in alignment rather than diverge, and that all countries have perfectly free markets with rational economic behavior.” These assumptions are false ? “full employment rarely exists; trade is almost never in balance; wages have diverged downward from productivity for the past several decades; and many TPP countries have state-directed capitalism or strong industrial policies to influence and alter market outcomes.”

Untrue Past Results ? The CGE model was used to analyze China’s being granted Permanent Normalized Trade Relations with China (China PNTR) in 2000 and the Korea-U. S. trade (KORUS) agreement in 2012. A reduction in the trade deficits were predicted for both countries, but the reality is that U. S. trade deficit with China increased from $68.7 billion in 1999 to $337 billion in 2015, and the Korea trade “deficit worsened by $12 billion annually between 2012 (date of KORUS implementation) to 2015.” (US Census Bureau)

Untrue Assumption of No Net Job Losses? “The CGE model wrongly assumes that there are no job losses to produce its results. The International Trade Administration assumes that for every billion dollars of U.S. exports supported 5,796 jobs, down from 7,117 jobs per billion dollars of U.S. exports in 2009. Conversely, every billion dollars of imports has the opposite result. Thus, where trade agreements result in worsening trade deficits, as is the case for the NAFTA, Korea and China PNTR deals, the job losses are drastic.”

Additionally, Stumo criticized the Peterson report because it ignores the fact the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement does not address problems with currency misalignment, border taxes (VATs), and industrial policies, such as state-owned enterprises and government subsidies.

Stumo stated, “The PIIE model incorrectly assumes that currency valuations will be set by the perfectly free market and will not be manipulated. It does not take into account rising foreign value added taxes – which replace tariffs – charged to imports from the US.  It also ignores the industrial policy and state-directed strategies that Japan, Vietnam and others use to give an advantage to state-influenced or national champion domestic industries.”

Stumo criticized the fact that PIIE admits the TPP will create no new jobs and little growth even if the CGE model’s conclusions are true.

Job Creation Will Not Occur ? “…while the TPP is not likely to affect overall employment in the United States, it will involve adjustment costs as US workers and capital move from less to more productive firms and industries. Section 4 estimates that 53,700 US jobs will be affected—i.e., that number is both eliminated in less productive import-competing firms and added in exporting and other expanding firms—in each year during implementation of the TPP. This kind of movement between jobs and industries is what economists refer to as “churn,” and most kinds of productivity growth cannot occur without it taking place. For perspective, 55.5 million American workers changed jobs in this way in 2014—so the transition effects of the TPP would represent only less than 0.1 percent increase in labor market churn in a typical year. Most workers who lose jobs do find alternative employment, but workers in specific locations, industries, or with skill shortages may experience serious transition costs including lasting wage cuts.”

The Peterson report even admits job loss from past trade agreements, stating “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.

The reality is that we lost 6.2 million manufacturing million jobs in the past 20 years as a result of NAFTA, China’s being granted PNTR in 1999, and the subsequent trade agreements with Central America, Korea, and other countries. Since manufacturing jobs create three to four other supporting or related jobs, we really lost 18 – 20 million jobs, which partly explains why 94,610,000 Americans are no longer in the labor force, which is the lowest participation rate in 38 years.

What do the report’s authors mean by “import-competing firms”? It appears to me that this means American manufacturing firms whose domestically-made products compete with imports for market share in the U. S. In addition, the Made in USA products are also competing as exports to other countries against the exports of China, Korea, our other trading and non-trading partners. So what guarantee do we have that the people losing jobs at import-competing firms will find jobs at exporting companies? None!

In addition, the CPA commentary highlighted the following:

Income gains are Negligible ? “The study projects that, by 2020, US incomes will rise a mere 0.1% of GDP. (Table 2).  This means that 99.9% of growth will happen without regard to the TPP.  The number 0.1% is equivalent to, or less than, a rounding error. It can only come true if all untrue assumptions in the CGE model are true. It will take another 10 years for the optimistic projection to deliver a meager 0.5% income gain by 2030.”

Middle Class Will Not Benefit ?  “Assuming (which we do not) the small income gains are realized, the study is silent on who benefits from them. The Economic Policy Institute reported that trade agreements account for 90% of wage inequality. If there are any income gains, the middle class will be a net loser.”

Other countries will “benefit” more than the US ? “The Peterson Study projects that Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam will gain far more than the United States.  The US Trade Representative, by pushing the TPP, is helping open markets for competitors in Japan and other countries. Japan is estimated to gain five times more income (in relation to GDP) than the US, Vietnam 16 times more, and Malaysia 15 times more. (Report, Table 2).”

Finally, the CPA commentary points out that other economic models show losses to the U.S. and other TPP countries. The commentary cites the fact that scholars at the Global Development And Environment Institute of Tufts University released a working paper in January 2016 that used the United Nations Global Policy Model (GPM). The Executive Summary of this paper states, “This GDAE Working Paper employs a more realistic model that incorporates effects on employment excluded from prior TPP modeling. We find that any benefits to economic growth are more limited, and even negative in some countries such as the United States. More importantly, we find that TPP would lead to losses in employment and increases in inequality. This is particularly true for the United States, where GDP is projected to fall slightly (-0.54 percent), employment to decline by 448,000 jobs, and inequality to increase as labor’s share of income falls by 1.31 percent.”

The paper states that the job loss would not be limited to the U. S, stating, The TPP would lead to employment losses in all countries, totaling 771,000 lost jobs…Participating developing economies would also suffer employment losses, as greater competitive pressures force them to limit labor incomes and increase production for export.”

In fact, it also states that job losses would not be limited to TPP trading partners: “The TPP would lead to losses in GDP and employment in non-TPP countries. In large part, the loss in GDP (-3.77 percent) and employment (879,000) among non-TPP developed countries would be due to losses in Europe, while developing country losses in GDP (-5.24%) and employment (-4.45 million) would reflect possible losses in China and India.”

The CPA commentary concludes that “the PIIE report as revealing the lack of any economic benefit from the TPP under the most optimistic, albeit implausible, circumstances. It is more likely that job destruction and industry shrinkage will continue being the net result.”

I will be even more emphatic in my predictions if the TPP is approved by Congress. The TPP will result in millions of job losses since past predictions were always exceeded. It will be another nail in the coffin of American manufacturing. The TPP is so overreaching in its scope that it would change many aspects of American life. I’ve written several previous articles posted on the blog section of my website under “trade” on the dangers of the TPP and why we must stop it from being approved by Congress. Do your own research and don’t be fooled by the rhetoric of its supporters. You can read the full text of the agreement for yourself here.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation, Jobs, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »