Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump is a Nazi, Only More Elitist
Okay, I’ll admit: The headline here is clickbait.
But here’s a data point which I think proves Donald J. Trump — if, in fact, this needs proof — is blowing steam out of his pie-hole. (I’m not trying to dive into the Trump vs. GOPe argument. I’m just trying to help Rob run a business here. I want people to read this post, think about the data point I’m writing about, and then join Ricochet.)
Chinese exports plunged 20 percent last month:
The weaker trade figures will be a fresh blow for Beijing’s economic policymakers who are trying to persuade markets around the world that the nation’s economy is sound.
The economy grew at its slowest pace in a quarter of a century last year and analysts are also worried about the weakness of the nation’s currency and capital flowing out of the country.
Among China’s key exports, labour-intensive products such as toys and shoes fell 12.4 per cent in the first two months of the year.
Exports of cars decreased 33.5 per cent, the customs administration said.
“It’s really frightening to see trade fall like this,” said Zhou Hao, an economist at Commerzbank in Singapore. “Net exports, on the surface, don’t matter much for China’s headline growth, but the real role of exports for China is far bigger if employment and the related value chain are considered.”
China just doesn’t look to me like it’s killing us:
China used to be a currency manipulator to our detriment. (Remember when Mitt Romney was banging on about that? He was probably blowing steam out of his pie-hole, too. I think it was true, but that was in about 2007. Probably wasn’t true by 2012.)
Anyway, they’re not anymore, or if they’re manipulating it, it’s to our benefit. Now they seem to be propping the yuan up, not holding it down. So if anything, Chinese exports are now artificially expensive — which is one reason their trade is plummeting.
I just don’t think they’re killing us. Look:
The trend seems pretty clear. We’re doing well from China having MFN status. How else could those charts and those trendlines be interpreted?
Anyone have a different interpretation?
Published in Economics, Foreign Policy, General
On trade and economics in general: Our overall trade deficit was roughly neutral through the mid 70’s and operated at a loss ever since, with the greatest deficit occurring 2005-2008. If we have gone through growth and recession both with large trade deficits, how useful is the trade deficit metric?
Apparently we create enough wealth internally to operate like this for decades. Wouldn’t a comparison of GDP, per-capita income/cost of living, etc. provide a better picture?
Not everyone in the US benefits from anything. Some lose because of school choice. Some lose because of entitlement reform. Some lose because of the availability of guns. Some lose because of the presumption of innocence. Some lose when affirmative action is prohibited. Some lose when unemployment benefits are reduced from 99 weeks to 13 weeks.
So what to do about the fact that conservative policies, which promote freedom and prosperity, cause some to lose? You could either jettison the policy, which is Trump’s answer, and diminish prosperity and freedom, or you could try to help the losers with job training, better education, greater economic growth creating more jobs, and the like.
No – slander is slander – you can tell the truth in many ways.
I think it was meant to be funny. :)
Sadly, it wasn’t taken that way because readers are familiar with how Dr. Berlinski feels about Trump.
But, given the line after the heading, I’m pretty sure it was an attempt at humor.
But is it slander to call a national socialist a Nazi?
I really resent your using Trump as clickbait in order to get me to read a thoughtful discussion on China and trade.
Wait. Who am I here?
Oh, right. Sorry.
I meant to say: Thanks, Claire!
Agree. And on that point, I think, we’ve failed.
For reasons I’ve already expressed, I don’t agree with the whole idea of tariffs. They cause only harm.
However, even if one were to agree with your program described here, what do you plan to do about the resulting retaliation, which is certain, and the possibility of trade war, which is likely?
We gave China the world without any strategic thought for how we could leverage their need and desire for access to our markets to our advantage. We were stupid. When Taiwan falls to the Chinese some years hence because we could not offset their military buildup, hope folks can salve their conscience by looking around their office at all the doodads they got cheap at Walmart. Love to see you take your pep talk to towns who lost jobs to China – make ’em feel better knowing how helpful free trade was at making the average Chinese’s life better.
We used to oppose totalitarian charnel houses on principle.
Now it’s okay so long as there’s profit. Well, I guess that makes me a Marxist who doesn’t even understand my own class warfare arguments.
Let’s see, China sells something like $365 billion more worth of goods to us than we to them. And this is a trade war the Chinese would undertake?
PS. I should have noted that Smoot-Hawley considerations make it desirable to offset these tariffs on Chinese goods with reductions on tariffs we impose on imports from other countries.
Yes, they would. The last time we imposed tariffs they retaliated. Sellers and buyers both benefit from a sale. They both lose if the sale doesn’t take place. China would be willing, I believe, to forego some short-term benefit in order to win the war and go back to the status quo ante.
I find it odd that you would think that China would not be willing to undertake a trade war but would be willing to invade Taiwan and incur all the costs and dislocations that would cause, and risk a shooting war with us.
Whether we trade with China or we don’t does not stop us from “offsetting” their military build up and, if we choose to, exceeding it exponentially. We simply choose to spend our money on entitlements.
On the other end of the equation, who builds China’s military equipment (ships, tanks, guns)? Do they make their own? If so, why would they need to trade with us to continue the build up? They could have a trade war with us and trade with the rest of the world.
Well they would surely lose – all $365 billion of exports – net – that keep their antsy workforce from tearing down the place and dismantling the Communist Party rule. So you have a hard task convincing me you have this correct. They need access to our markets a lot more than we theirs.
we do, but tariffs would be a supplementary source of income, as well as a source of leverage with the ChiComs. Of course we might not take care to keep our military indomitable, even so. It would be a tool we could use or misuse.
Wouldn’t that depend on the availability of an alternative market for the goods they sell to us versus the availability for the goods we sell to them?
Exports to China also about to go up as all the new manufacturing begin coming on line just in TX and LA. We are expecting empty ocean shipping container shortages by beginning of 2017.
But why would trade with us, which to them means working long hours for low pay, and sending almost everything they produce to us, keep their workforce happy? Would you be happy if the situation were reversed and you worked hard all day in a factory so that the Chinese can live well?
It isn’t work that keeps the Chinese from revolting. It is the things that work is supposed to bring: food, shelter, etc.
But it’s not as simple as that. If tariffs reduce trade volume, we lose the gains from trade, and become poorer. Those losses could exceed the amount collected in tariffs, making it that much more difficult to expand our military.
You’re saying that the boom times for builders who make cheap homes out of shipping containers are over? Think of all the jobs lost because this vital building material is being shipped to China. What do we get in return?!
Extra laydown space at land-constrained waterfront operations. Real Estate; the most valuable commodity in the world!
Why is he saying stuff that doesn’t entirely make sense, and why does it appeal to his constituency?
He’s giving an easy incomplete answer rather than a difficult complete one.
Conclusion: if he wins he’ll crash the economy or completely let down the people who voted for him – further alienating them from the democratic process.
Neither sounds like a good option.
People don’t want hard complete answers. They want bold and ineffective action.
I base my suppositions on reports that the Communist Party is in an uneasy situation – they are riding a tiger and need constantly to supplicate a workforce that is addicted to jobs supplying their export industries. Commentators I have read are very skeptical that the Party would long survive if these jobs dry up for any reason, that social unrest would explode. My conviction that they need our markets a lot more than we theirs is based solely on this understanding.
“This is what I see reported:
In modern China, the ruling Communist Party is often said to have an unwritten social contract with the Chinese people. The Party provides financial prosperity and political stability, and in return China’s citizens won’t challenge its monopoly on power. This has worked out fairly well for the average Chinese citizen, hundreds of millions of which have been lifted out of poverty.
But what happens when the government can no longer provide that level of prosperity and can’t fulfill its side of the contract? What happens when China’s 1.3 billion people start demanding alternative forms of government?…
…China needs annual economic growth of at least 7 percent in order to generate continued prosperity and economic opportunity”
True, but the report you cited listed four forms of control the Communist Party was focusing on to remain in power.
Is any of these, especially foreign policy adventurism to harness patriotism to support the Government of the day against ‘outsiders’, in the best interests of the US or the rest of the world?
It is in the best interests of China, the Chinese Communist Party and most of the rest of the world (including, imho, the US) for China to transition from export dominated growth to internal consumer dominated growth, and to do that without a big bang (of any kind).
Given current circumstances, that really looks like it has to be with the Communist Party remaining in power, because if they’re removed they’ll make some big bangs on the way out.
I don’t doubt the political problems a communist regime would have if it cannot deliver some prosperity to make up for the lack of political and social freedom.
But please explain how hard work with nothing to buy would be considered by the ordinary Chinese citizen as continued prosperity?
MWA done hit the target one thousand times in the same spot (take that Davy Crockett!). I don’t work for the sake of working itself. I work for the goods and services that I can purchase with the value of my work which enables me to live and also increase my living standard.
As I stated before, who says we are their only market. Both sides will most likely lose a bit if trade stopped. Marxist China is not even remotely like the USSR. They opened up to us and they have been making some strides.
Are they perfect? No, but there is some significant progress. China’s military does not yet stand as our equal and our military actually has some combat experience under its belt. That is a big difference.
You can’t be serious in believing China could find other buyers for ~$500 billion of stuff. It is already maxed out to the gills. And I think you are underestimating how much their military has improved in recent years.
Claire, I see daily the closed businesses, idled capital plant and workers who have no place to gain skills.
Looking at daily or yearly numbers and the momentary ups and downs is not the way you measure economic wreckage.
In war, you destroy the enemy’s ability to fight. If you take out a country’s skills and capital plant, the effect lasts years.
If I make your house worth less, you are poorer, regardless of your annual income.
The wreckage to our human and physical capital has been large and will take years to fix.
I also assume you and Rob will hang out a No Trump Supporters Need Apply on the Ricochet membership page with your clickbait.