Posts Tagged ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’

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 »

How Could the Trans Pacific Partnership Affect you or your Business

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House Leadership Blindsides Opposition to Trade Promotion Authority

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2015

On Monday, June 15th, House Republican leadership announced that they had decided to delay the re-vote anytime up to July 30th on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) which “fast tracks” ObamaTrade. Less than three days later, the opposition was blindsided by representatives in the House approving the standalone TPA bill by a close vote of 218 to 208 (see how Representatives voted here.) Because the House approved a standalone TPA bill, the Senate has to vote on a standalone TPA bill as well as legislation extending Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and the U.S. trade preferences program before the president can sign the TPA bill into law. The trade preferences bill would renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Generalized System of Preferences, and trade preferences for Haiti.

There was a question whether enough of the 14 Senate Democrats who voted in favor of a combined TPA-TAA bill on May 22nd would vote in favor of a standalone TPA bill. TPA supporters hoped these senators would be influenced to vote in favor of cloture because they have voted for fast track already and because all 28 House Democrats who voted for a TPA bill to be combined with the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill were united in voting for a standalone bill on June 18th.

Senator McConnell filed for cloture on both the TPA bill and the preferences legislation late Thursday, for the vote to be held on Tuesday, June 23rd. The vote on cloture requires 60 votes. As I finish this article, I just watched the Republican leadership get the 60 “yes” votes needed to invoke cloture, with 37 senators voting “no,” and three not voting.

This means 30 hours of debate on the bill would begin, meaning that a final vote on the TPA bill could take place as early as Wednesday. Only a majority of 51 votes are needed to pass TPA. After the passage of TPA, the Senate would then vote on cloture on the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and the trade preferences bill. If cloture is invoked, a final vote on the TAA-preferences bill could come Thursday or Friday.

The House of Representatives would still need to vote on the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill. Since only 86 Republicans voted in favor of the TAA bill on June 12th, it would require at least 92 Democrats to vote in favor of TAA in order for it to pass the House. At that time, only 40 Democrats voted to renew the TAA program, while the vast majority joined House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in voting “no” to stop or delay the TPA.

On June 18th, June 18, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that “President Barack Obama isn’t going to support a strategy that gives him half a loaf on his trade agenda.

With Capitol Hill leaders working on a plan that would split Trade Promotion Authority from Trade Adjustment Assistance, Earnest made clear Obama will demand both. ‘The only legislative strategy that the president will support is a strategy that results in both TPA and TAA coming to his desk,’ he said.”

In an email to members of the SoCal Fair Trade Campaign on June 19th, Arthur Stamoulis, Executive Director of the Citizens Trade Campaign, wrote in part, “As short-sighted and inappropriate as the original Ryan-Hatch Fast Track bill was, the House package is actually even worse. It would weaken human trafficking measures; eliminate simple currency measures and other enforcement provisions; and even prohibit the consideration of climate solutions in future trade negotiations. Senators now have even more reason to vote no than they did last time around.

After the previous Senate vote to approve the combined TPA/TAA bill on May 18, 2015, Senator Elizabeth Warren released a 15-page report, “Broken Promises: Decades of Failure to Enforce Labor Standards in Free Trade Agreements,” showing that the United States pursues very few enforcement actions to uphold the labor protections in its trade agreements. In her press release, she stated, ““Supporters of past trade agreements have said again and again that these deals would include strong protections for workers, but assurances without strong enforcement are just empty promises,” Senator Warren said. ” The facts show that, despite all the promises, these trade deals were just another tool to tilt the playing field in further of multinational corporations and against working families.”

In the Weekly Standard of June 17th, anti-TPA Republican, Senator Jeff Sessions, stated, “It is essential that there be no misunderstanding: fast-track preapproves the formation of not only the unprecedentedly large Trans-Pacific Partnership, but an unlimited number of such agreements over the next six years. Those pacts include three of the most ambitious ever contemplated. After TPP comes the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union, followed by the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), seeking as one its goals labor mobility among more than 50 nations. Together, these three international compacts encompass three-fourths of the world’s GDP. Including the nations whose membership is being courted for after enactment, the countries involved would encompass nearly 90 percent of global GDP. Yet, through fast-track, Congress will have authorized the President to ink these deals before a page of them has been made public. Then, the Executive sends Congress ‘implementing’ legislation to change U.S. law—legislation which cannot be amended, cannot be filibustered, and will not be subjected to the Constitutional requirement for a two-thirds treaty vote…This nation has never seen an agreement that compares to the TPP, which forms a new Pacific Union. This is far more than a trade agreement, but creates a self-governing and self-perpetuating Commission with extraordinary implications for American workers and American sovereignty.”

On June 19th, Steve Elliott of Grassfire, emailed, “They made their dirty “back-room” deal behind closed doors and now they are on auto-pilot to “land” ObamaTrade Fast Track despite massive public opposition…Boehner and McConnell use deception and trickery to resurrect the defeated Fast Track bill and then announce that this is on a “glide-path”!

In an email I received June 23rd, Chris Chmielenski of NumbersUSA, stated, “The current version of TPA, H.R.2146, would allow Pres. Obama to negotiate immigration increases into free trade agreements that would only be subject to a simple up-or-down vote from Congress. TPA would not only cover the massive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the United States and 12 other Pacific Rim nations, but also cover the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) between the U.S., European Union, and other nations. TiSA includes labor mobility for more than 50 nations and could increase the number of foreign workers allowed to work in the U.S. and extend the length of their work visas.”

In an email I received on June 22nd, Senator Rand Paul stated, “Over the past few weeks, more and more Americans have begun to see why I oppose Obamatrade. As far as I’m concerned, the American people have had enough of government hiding things from us. And every time they say it’s “for our own good,” we’ve found ourselves in an even deeper mess…If passed, “fast-track” authority would allow trade deals the Obama administration negotiates with the 12 member nations covered in the Trans-Pacific Partnership to pass Congress with a simple majority vote — instead of the 67 U.S. Senate votes the U.S. Constitution requires for ratification of a Treaty…It’s time for this scheme to be released for the American people. If the President won’t release it and agree to an open and transparent process — to ensure Americans’ liberty is protected — Congress must vote “NO!”

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter, issued a press release June 23rd, which states in part: “Today, the Senate narrowly approved a procedural motion to pass a degraded version of the Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority that passed last month… Today’s bill also weakened the Senate’s earlier provisions addressing human trafficking and currency manipulation and includes new House language that prohibits trade deals from ever addressing climate change or immigration issues…Fast Track will accelerate Congressional consideration of the as-yet-unseen Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact that will undermine key consumer, public health and environmental protections, and other trade deals that follow. These trade deals could undermine America’s food safety standards and commonsense food labeling measures, bringing a rising tide of unsafe imported food to our grocery stores and restaurants.”

After the cloture vote, Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America issued the following statement, which in part states, “The Republican base and the Democratic base remain united in their opposition to current trade and global governance policy. Job creation claims are no longer believed because they have proved false. Growth claims fall flat. The rhetoric in favor of trade deals contrasts shockingly with the data on post-agreement performance.

America needs to establish a long term goal of balanced trade, a medium term goal of becoming a net exporting nation and a short term goal of producing more of what we consume. We need to recognize that tariffs and quotas are no longer the issue. This is not 1906 anymore. The new mercantilism and trade distortions are currency manipulation, foreign border tax hikes, industrial subsidies and a few other tactics that move the net trade needle towards deficit. Any modern trade policy must address these modern tactics. And America must fix its tax policy to substantially increase our trade competitiveness.”

Since the Trade Promotion Authority only needs 51 votes to pass, it is likely that the bill will pass the Senate because of 60 senators voting for cloture. The only path left for the American people will be to convince Congress not to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. At least, the Trade Promotion Authority requires “at least 60 days before the day on which the President enters into the agreement, publishes the text of the agreement on a publicly available Internet website of the Office of the United States Trade Representative.”

I urge all Americans to stop being apathetic and exercise their constitutional right to address their representatives in Congress. We must stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and other treaties in negotiation from destroying our national sovereignty and harming the American way of life.

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

How would the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement affect the Reshoring Trend?

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015

Reshoring has become a trend, not just anecdotal, as hardly a week goes by without an article about a company returning manufacturing to America in some news outlet. However, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is projected to reduce the rate of reshoring and manufacturing jobs being brought back to the U. S. Combined with the high U. S. dollar, the impact is likely to be severe.

Utilization of the Total Cost of Ownership worksheet estimator developed by Harry Moser, founder of the Reshoring Initiative, has provided a method for companies to do a true analysis to be able to see that they may not be saving as much, if any, of the money anticipated by sourcing offshore because the cost savings are often outweighed by the hidden costs of doing business offshore.

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is “the sum of all the costs associated with every activity of the supply stream,” according to the 13th edition APICS dictionary.” However, most companies don’t look beyond quoted unit price to make decision of where to source and ignore 20% or more of the total cost of offshored products. According to the Archstone Consulting survey reported in the American Machinist Magazine July 16, 2009, 60% of manufacturers apply only “rudimentary” total cost models: Wage Arbitrage, PPV (Purchase Price Variance), and Landed Cost.

This is because in the cost accounting systems used by most corporations, transportation costs, travel costs to vendors, rework costs of defective parts, cost of inventory, etc. are in separate accounting categories. This is why it is critical that CFOs and Supply Chain managers be trained in how to use the TCO worksheet to increase reshoring. Harry Moser’s TCO worksheet is able to quantify many of the following hidden costs of sourcing offshore that are not captured by any other current method:

  • Currency fluctuations
  • Cost of managing offshore contract
  • Design changes
  • Quality problems
  • Legal liabilities
  • Travel expenses
  • Time and effort to make transition
  • Poor communication
  • Intellectual Property infringement
  • Cost of inventory

The reshoring trend has also benefited by the following changing supply chain dynamics in offshore sourcing that have occurred since 2007:

  • Oil prices tripled, raising logistics costs
  • Labor rates in China rose by 300%
  • Component/material prices increased
  • Automation increased U.S. productivity
  • Political instability in China – Labor riots/strikes
  • Exchange rate variables
  • Risk of disruption from natural disasters

This is why the Boston Consulting Group issued a press release May 5, 2011, stating, “We expect net labor costs for manufacturing in China and the U.S. to converge by around 2015… since wage rates account for 20 to 30 percent of a product’s total cost, manufacturing in China will be only 10 to 15 percent cheaper than in the U.S.” This prediction was very controversial at the time and generated a great deal of debate.

On October 11, 2011, the Boston Consulting Group issued a report, stating, “Seven industry sectors had reached “tipping point” of returning to U.S.” They are:

  • Appliances and electrical equipment
  • Computer/electronics
  • Fabricated metal products
  • Electrical equipment/appliances
  • Furniture
  • Machinery
  • Plastics and rubber products
  • Transportation goods

Note: These sectors account for 70% of U.S. imports and 2 trillion in U.S. consumption

Because robotics, automation, lean manufacturing, and the rapidly improving technology of additive manufacturing have helped companies do more with fewer people, many have been skeptical that reshoring would create many jobs. The Boston Consulting Group’s predictions of which industry sectors would return to the U. S. first are now verified by data that the Reshoring Initiative has captured since its founding in 2010. This data also provides the answer to the question of how many jobs have been created by reshoring.

The following chart shows the number of jobs created by reshoring:

Industry

 Jobs Companies
Transportation Equipment 13,823 33
Electrical Equipment, Appliances, Components 9,240 58
Computer/Electronic Products 3,483 25
Machinery 2,860 20
Apparel/Textiles 2,154 46
Fabricated Metal Products 1,721 39
Food 1,628 9
Wood Products 1,028 18
Medical Equipment    738 17
Hobbies    723 29
Construction    577 4
Plastic/Rubber Products    470 16
Castings      57 8
Non-Metallic Mineral Products      12 1
Primary Metal Products        0 5
Chemicals & Energy        0 1 each
Other 1,016 24

The Reshoring Initiative has also captured reshoring data by state. You will be surprised by some of the states that made it in the top ten because the Boston Consulting Group predicted that reshoring would mainly occur in the low wage states of the south. The data for the top ten states is shown on the chart below.

State

Jobs

 Cases Jobs/Facility
South Carolina 7,530 8 941
Texas 3,792 13 292
Kentucky 3,412 4 853
Georgia 3,145 8 393
Tennessee 3,137 15 209
Ohio 2,739 24 114
Michigan 1,742 16 109
New York 1,165 19 61
North Carolina 1,020 15 68
Kansas 1,000 2 500

Three of these states, Ohio, Michigan, and New York are definitely not low wage states. California dropped from a rank of 10th in the number of jobs shown on the 2014 table to 12th on this new table. Frankly, if a company can reshore to California, Michigan, New York and Ohio, they can reshore to anywhere in the U. S.

According to the 2012 Annual Re-Shoring Report by the MIT Forum For Supply Chain Innovation, the top decision drivers for reshoring are: (1) Time-to-Market – 73.7% (2) Cost Reductions – 63.9% (3) Product Quality – 62.2% (4) More Control – 56.8% (5) Hidden Supply Chain Management Costs – 51.4% and (6). Protect IP – 48.5%.

If reshoring continues to expand at its current rate, the Reshoring Initiative predicts that the $600 billion/year trade deficit would be eliminated; the U. S. economy would add 3 million manufacturing jobs while adding 9-12 million total jobs because of the multiplier effect of manufacturing jobs; reduce unemployment by 4%; cut the U.S. budget deficit by about 50%, and increase manufacturing output by 25%.

Because of my concerns about the impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement about which I have written, I recently asked Harry Moser for his opinion on the potential effects.

He said, “We have made huge progress from around 2003 when we were losing net about 130,000 manufacturing jobs/year till 2014 when reshoring plus FDI exceeded offshoring by about 10,000 jobs. However there are still about 3 million manufacturing jobs offshored. So, reshoring is still in its infancy and is still fragile. Offshore LLC prices are still typically 25% lower than domestic prices. It is a struggle to get companies to understand that in some cases the domestic total cost is lower even though the price is so much higher. Tariffs are one of the largest, most unambiguous of the “hidden costs” that need to be quantified. TPP will reduce tariffs, making the TCO argument more difficult and less likely to suggest reshoring. This is also an especially poor time for TPP with the USD up substantially and at its highest level in several years. The combination of the high USD and TPP will reduce the rate of reshoring by a roughly estimated 20 to 50%.”

He added, “Since the U.S. is the world’s largest market, with one language and with consumers who are mainly driven by price not nationalism, ours is the target market for all offshore companies. TPP will reduce barriers to trade, making our market even more attractive. If TPP has equal percentage impacts on our imports and our exports, the result will be negative since our goods imports exceed our exports by about 40%. ”

The TPP would reduce or eliminate tariffs for 11 more countries, so it will have the most impact on the companies that have reshored because of cost savings. I think Harry’s opinion that the TPP would have a 20 – 50% reduction on the rate of reshoring is conservative. This adverse effect on reshoring is one more reason why we must stop the fast track Trade Promotion Authority from being passed by the House. Now that the Trade Promotion Authority fast tracking the TPP passed the Senate, it is critical that you contact your Congressional Representative to urge them to oppose granting fast track Trade Promotion Authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

 

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

Is there a Relationship Between our Trade Deficits and our National Debt?

Tuesday, January 27th, 2015

In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress for Fast Track trade authority to move forward on the two trade agreements that have been in negotiations behind closed doors for the past four years: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Trans-Atlantic Trade Agreement. I have already written several articles about why Fast Track Authority should not be granted and the dangers of the TPP. The purpose of this article is to show that there is a relationship between our trade deficits and our national debt. As shown by the chart below, we now have a more than $18 trillion national debt.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

Notice how it sharply ramps up starting in 2001. The recessions of 2001-2002 and 2008-2009 obviously played a significant factor in the increase in the national debt from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to its present level, because during recessions, there is a decrease in tax revenues and an increase in spending for unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other assistance, as well as spending on programs to attempt to stimulate the economy.

However, 2001 also coincides with the first full year of trade with China under the rules of World Trade Organization after “Congress agreed to permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status,” which “President Clinton signed into law on October 10, 2000,” paving “the way for China’s accession to the WTO in December 2000.”

According to Alan Uke’s book, Buying Back America, the United States now has a trade deficit with 88 countries. Of course, some deficits are small, but some are enormous, such as China. According to the Census Bureau, our top seven trading partners are: Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. These seven countries represent 50.9% of our total trade deficit $ -461.3 billion for January – November 2014. At an average deficit of $40 billion per month, the 2014 trade deficit will exceed $500 billion. Our 2014 trade deficit with China alone was $-$314.3 billion for January – November, representing 68% of the total.

Some may claim that we are still the leader in advanced technology products, but this is no longer true. The U. S. has been running a trade deficit in these products since 2002, which has grown to an astonishing average of nearly $90 billion per year since 2010.

Even our most recent trade agreement, the Korea U. S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), which went into effect on March 2012 has had negative impact. The Office of the   Last March, the U. S. Trade Representative for the Obama Administration touted, “Since the Korea agreement went into effect, U.S. exports to Korea are up for our manufactured goods, including autos, exports are up for a wide range of our agricultural products, and exports are up for our services.” However, the reality is that our imports continued to exceed our exports, and the U. S. trade deficit with Korea jumped from -$13.62 billion in 2011 to -$22,838.3 billion through November 2014, which is a 60% increase in two and a half years.

china trade deficitSource:  http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-us-trade-deficit-with-china-2013-4

Notice that there is a similar upward slope on the above graph to the upward slope of our national debt chart. Anyone can see that our trade deficits have a significant impact on our national debt.

The only thing that kept our trade deficits from being higher than they have been is that fact that we have increased the exports of services to balance our imports of goods as shown by the following chart:

 

Year Total Goods Services
1999 -$258,617 billion -$337,068 billion $78,450 billion
2000 -$372,517 billion -$446,783 billion $74,266 billion
2002 -$418,955 billion -$475,245 billion $56,290 billion
2004 -$609,883 billion -$782,804 billion $68,558 billion
2006 -$761,716 billion -$837,289 billion $75,573 billion
2008 -$708,726 billion -$832,492 billion $123,765 billion
2010 -$494,658 billion -$648,678 billion $154,020 billion
2012 -$537,605 billion -$742,095 billion $204,490 billion
2014 -$461,336 billion -$673,612 billion $212,277 billion

Source: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/exhibit_history.pdf

As you can see, our trade deficit in goods more than doubled from 1999 to 2004 and reached astronomical heights just before the worldwide recession.

So how do our trade deficits add to the national debt? One way is that many products, especially consumer products, which were previously made in the U. S., are now made in China or other Asian countries, so we are importing these products instead of exporting them to other countries. The offshoring of manufacturing of so many products has resulted in the loss 5.8 million American manufacturing jobs and the closure of over 57,000 of manufacturing firms. These American workers and companies paid taxes that provided revenue to our government, so now we have less tax revenue and pay to pay for the benefits and public assistance for the unemployed and underemployed.

Our balance of payments indebtedness for trade and the additional cost to the government paid by taxpayers for these benefits has resulted in our escalating national debt. The cheaper China price of goods that we import instead of producing here in the U. S. results in a cost to society as a whole. We need to ask ourselves: Is the China price worth the cost to society?

I say a resounding NO! We need to stop shooting ourselves in the feet. We need to stop benefiting the one percent of large multinational corporations to the detriment of the 99% percent of smaller American companies.

Beyond stopping Fast Track Authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership from being approved, we need to focus on achieving “balanced trade” in any future trade agreement. Until we change the goal of trade agreements, we should refrain from negotiating any trade agreement. The last thing we need is to increase our trade deficit more than it already is.

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

 

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

Why the Trans Pacific Partnership Would Hurt American Manufacturers

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

The Obama Administration has continued negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement behind doors closed to the media and without the Congressional involvement that was requested by Congress. Besides being a threat to our national sovereignty as I discussed in a previous blog, it is time to shine the light on another egregious provision that would hurt American manufacturers.

The Buy American Act was passed by Congress in 1933 and required the U.S. government to give preferential treatment to American producers in awarding of federal contracts. The Act restricted the purchase of supplies that are not domestic end products. For manufactured products, the Buy American Act used a two-part test:  first, the article must be manufactured in the U.S., and second, the cost of domestic components must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its components. Other federal legislation passed since extended similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize federal funds, such as highway and transit programs.

“Buy American” provisions do not help all U.S. firms equally. Corporations headquartered in the U.S. that offshore most of their manufacturing operations do not benefit from the system designed to promote domestic production in the way that companies with actual U.S. manufacturing operations do. However, strengthening the “Buy American” provisions in our federal procurement system is one of the recommendations I made in my book to benefit American manufacturers and help save American manufacturing.

If a domestic producer offers the government a more expensive bid than a foreign producer, it can still be awarded the contract under certain circumstances, but more recent free trade agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms.

In certain government procurements, the requirements may be waived if purchasing the material/parts domestically would burden the government with an unreasonable cost, as when the price differential between the domestic product and a identical foreign-sourced product exceeds a certain percentage, or the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality, or if doing so is not in the public interest. In recent years, the requirements have been increasingly waived to the point that we have lost domestic sources for some defense components and products.

In addition, the President has authority to waive the Act in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 GATT Agreement on Government Procurement, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and the Korea Free Trade Agreement, access to government procurement by certain U.S. agencies of goods for the other parties to these agreements is granted. Every one of these trade agreements have increased the trade deficit that the U.S. has with the parties to these agreements.

The Obama administration is currently pushing to grant the several nations involved in the Trans-Pacific agreement the same privileged status. What this means is that the TPP’s procurement chapter would require that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement be provided access equal to domestic firms to U.S. government procurement contracts over a certain dollar threshold. To meet this requirement, the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries.
Supporters of TPP argue that it would be good for America because these rules would apply to all the countries signing the agreement, so U.S. firms would be able to bid on procurements contracts in other countries on a national treatment basis. The question is whether this new access for some U.S. companies to bid on contracts in the TPP countries is a good trade-off for waiving Buy America preferences on U.S. procurement?

Lori Wallach of Public Citizen has written several articles warning about the dangers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In an article titled, TPP Government Procurement Negotiations:

Buy American Policy Banned, a Net Loss for the U.S., she points out that the total U.S. procurement market is more than seven times the size of the combined procurement market of the current TPP negotiating parties: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. But the United States already has trade deals with procurement provisions with six of these countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Singapore. Removing these countries would mean that the U.S. procurement market is 24 times the size of the total “new” TPP procurement market.

She concludes “the size of the new procurement markets that the TPP may open for the United States is in the order of $53 billion (national) to $72 billion (total), which is a terrible trade for giving up the U.S procurement market of $556 billion (federal) to $1.7 trillion (total).”

In addition, she notes that the TPP procurement rules would constrain how our national and state governments may use our tax dollars in local construction projects and purchase of goods and limit what specifications Governments can require for goods and services, as well as the qualifications for bidding companies.

She warns that if we do not conform our domestic policies to the TPP terms, the U.S. government would be subject to lawsuits before foreign tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against the U.S. until our policies changed. “Also, any “investor” that happens to be incorporated in one of these countries would be empowered to launch its own extra-judicial attack on our domestic laws in World Bank and UN arbitral tribunals with respect to changes to procurement contracts with the U.S. federal government.”

A letter from Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and 68 other Congressional Reps to President Obama on May 3, 2012 states in part, “We are concerned about proposals we understand are under consideration in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations that could significantly limit Buy American provisions and as a result adversely impact American jobs, workers, and manufacturers…We do not believe this approach is in the best interest of U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers. Of special concern is the prospect that firms established in TPP countries, such as the many Chinese firms in Vietnam, could obtain waivers from Buy American policies. This could result in larger sums of U.S. tax dollars being invested to strengthen other countries’ manufacturing sectors, rather than our own.”

On November 30, 2012, 24 Senators sent a letter to President Obama outlining guidelines for the TPP and calling for Congressional consultation for the TPP. The letter urged that the TPP:

“Maintain “Buy American” government procurement requirements. The American people, through their elected officials, should not be prohibited from establishing government procurement policies that prioritize job creation in the United States. We hope that you will direct USTR negotiators to ensure that any TPP not restrict “Buyer American” and ”Buy Local” government procurement policies at the Federal or sub-federal level.

Require strong Rules of Origin. The Rules of Origin in the TPP should ensure that only signatories to the TPP will benefit from its increased market access and other provisions so that employment opportunities in the U.S. may be expanded. Non-TPP members must not be allowed to use weak rules of origin as a backdoor way to enter the U.S. market and further depress U.S. job prospects.

Ensure that State-Owned and State-Supported Commercial Enterprises (SOEs) operate on a level playing field.  Given that SOEs are more common in the other TPP countries than in the U.S., the TPP should require that SOEs competing with private U.S. enterprises operate and make decisions on a commercial basis.  The agreement should also incorporate a reporting requirement so that countries have to provide information on the operation of their SOEs in other TPP countries on a regular basis.”

Country of Original labeling is another one of the recommendations I’ve written about in previous blog articles and is the main recommendation of Alan Uke in his book Buying Back America. This would help American consumers make choices when they purchase consumer goods and allow professional procurement specialists in industry and government to choose to support American manufacturers through “Buying American.”

The TPP treaty would exacerbate our trade deficit problem and make it even harder for American manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Instead of weakening “Buy American” requirements through additional trade agreements such as TPP, we need to strengthen the requirements.

This drastic curtailment of “Buy American” procurement provisions is another reason why we must make sure Congress rejects any fast-track authority the Obama administration seeks to invoke when it comes time to get final congressional approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
Please join me in opposing granting fast-track authority by signing the petition at the American Jobs Alliance website and contacting your representatives directly at http://act.americanjobsalliance.com/5516/tell-obama-no/

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Manufacturing, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »