Connect with us

Economy

Trump’s Phase One Trade Deal Shows He Envies Xi’s State-Control of China’s Economy – Forbes

Published

 on


Something glaring has been lost in the media’s headlines and in the carefully detailed analysis by many of my fellow trade economists in the wake of the White House announcement in December 2019 that China and the U.S. have come to an agreement on “Phase One” of a hoped for grand trade détente between the world’s two largest economies. 

It is the recognition that under the Trump Administration, American policy toward international commerce has pivoted markedly toward a greater role for the U.S. government, rather than businesses, to engage directly in commercial cross-border transactions.

 The centerpiece and seemingly the most tangible component of the Phase One agreement—at least as much as anyone can tell, since as 2019 comes to a close neither side has yet to issue a formal text—is a commitment by the Chinese government, through its state owned enterprises, to procure perhaps as much as $50bn worth of agricultural products from the U.S. over several years. 

The irony that the President Trump’s trade team is relying heavily on state-to-state procurement transactions to ease trade frictions has not been lost on Xi Jinping according to friends of mine very well placed in Beijing.

Indeed, that the U.S. has become more like China rather than the other way around—at least in terms of respecting the WTO rules-of-the road regarding disciplines on non-market economies—is exactly what Mr. Xi has been hoping for as his Christmas gift all year long.  

As long as Trump stays in power, Xi can count on this as the gift that will keep on giving. Given imperiled economy Mr. Xi oversees—if not feverishly trying to resuscitate—Trump’s gift is welcome indeed.

There is a plausible reason why Mr. Xi understands very well what drives the U.S. president.  Trump emulates Mr. Xi’s ability to give the state the paramount role in the functioning of the economy.

The same can be said for Trump’s simpatico rapport with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and even North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, among other strongmen today across the globe.

Beyond the arranged agricultural deals with China, other actions reflect Trump’s longing for state control of the U.S. economy.  Here are three that the president or his team have been contemplating or have begun to execute during his term in office so far.

The first is the starkest example. It was Trump’s attempt to order U.S. firms to leave China. Recall his Tweet earlier in 2019: “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.” 

Second, Trump and his Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, have been working with allies in Congress to force a de-listing of Chinese firms from U.S. stock exchanges. 

Ironically, portfolio investments in these businesses by American individuals and institutions might help those groups attain greater oversight of—or at least a better window on—the activities and performance of those Chinese firms, something one would think would be of value to the U.S. government.

And, third, Mr. Trump’s Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos, has launched a new program to penalize U.S. universities that inadequately disclose funding received from certain foreign governments. 

These are resources that significantly help finance the operations of U.S. universities’ overseas campuses (which are highly profitable activities); fund cutting edge research activities taking place within U.S. universities by U.S. scholars; and plug a hole in cash-strapped U.S. universities, especially publicly funded schools.

These three initiatives are a few of the components of Mr. Trump’s overarching drive for a forced “decoupling” of the U.S. from China. If such a decoupling were successful, it would be the ultimate example of Trump’s exercise of a state-directed economy.

Fortunately, as I have written earlier in this space, any meaningful form of artificial decoupling is not only unwise public policy but it simply will not take root easily in a global economy whose supply chains, including the assembly of various components sourced from numerous geographies into final products, are truly multinational.

In short, no matter how forceful a government’s policy might be to try and sharply re-orient the current worldwide constellation of the location of production and consumption, as well as both the flows of technological advances and their geographic diffusion, it will unlikely counter in the short-run powerful forces engendered by inertia.

Why do I say that? 

First, enacting and implementing new U.S. policies to bring about changes in taxes, tariffs and wage rates—among other factors—in order to alter global supply chains will not be easy tasks to accomplish. Even if the same party controlled both the executive and legislative branches, do not underestimate the power of U.S. businesses, labor and other interest groups to weigh in heavily.    

Second, corporations with large fixed investments abroad will—for good reasons—not reconfigure their supply chain configurations on a dime. They will want to hedge their bets that any policy changes are durable.

Third, countries compete against each other to attract investment. A move by the U.S. to, say, make China a less desirable location for American firms to operate, will beget compensatory changes not only by Beijing but other countries in the region, for example, the ASEAN states. The world marketplace operates like a dynamic game.  

Finally, the notion that the world will operate according to bifurcated technology standards for very long—say a duopoly of Western and Chinese technological regimes—is hard to digest. 

The power of global economies of scale and scope will likely disrupt any semblance of a stable competitive equilibrium in this regard. One does not have think back very long to remember the race between Betamax, VHS, and DVDs.         

Mr. Trump surely envies Mr. Xi’s sweeping governmental powers and his hold over the Chinese economy, which—for better or worse—has become the “world’s factory” of today.  

In an ever-changing global marketplace, however, nothing guarantees such a configuration will not migrate to elsewhere on the globe in a few decades time.  Indeed, this could be hastened by Xi’s reluctance to reform a moribund economic system.

In this regard, Trump would do well to recognize that strongmen economies do come to end, and often their demise is not a pretty sight, particularly for those at the very top.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

China’s Central Bank Cuts Key Short-Term Rate to Buoy Economy – Bloomberg

Published

 on


[unable to retrieve full-text content]

China’s Central Bank Cuts Key Short-Term Rate to Buoy Economy  Bloomberg

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Here is Trump economy: Slower growth, higher prices and a bigger national debt

Published

 on

If Donald Trump is re-elected president of the United States in November, Americans can expect higher inflation, slower economic growth and a larger national debt, according to economists.

Trump’s economic agenda for a second term in office includes raising tariffs on imports, cutting taxes and deporting millions of undocumented migrants.

“Inflation will be the main impact” of a second Trump presidency, Bernard Yaros, lead US economist at Oxford Economics, told Al Jazeera.

“That’s ultimately the biggest risk. If Trump is president, tariffs are going up for sure. The question is how high do they go and how widespread are they,” Yaros said.

Trump has proposed imposing a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all imported goods and levies of 60 percent or higher on Chinese imports.

During Trump’s first term in office from 2017 to 2021, his administration introduced tariff increases that at their peak affected about 10 percent of imports, mostly goods from China, Moody’s Analytics said in a report released in June.

Those levies nonetheless inflicted “measurable economic damage”, particularly to the agriculture, manufacturing and transportation sectors, according to the report.

“A tariff increase covering nearly all goods imports, as Trump recently proposed, goes far beyond any previous action,” Moody’s Analytics said in its report.

Businesses typically pass higher tariffs on to their customers, raising prices for consumers. They could also affect businesses’ decisions about how and where to invest.

“There are three main tenets of Trump’s campaign, and they all point in the same inflationary direction,” Matt Colyar, assistant director at Moody’s Analytics, told Al Jazeera.

“We didn’t even think of including retaliatory tariffs in our modelling because who knows how widespread and what form the tit-for-tat model could involve,” Colyar added.

‘Recession becomes a serious threat’

When the US opened its borders after the COVID-19 pandemic, the inflow of immigrants helped to ease labour shortages in a range of industries such as construction, manufacturing, leisure and hospitality.

The recovery of the labour market in turn helped to bring down inflation from its mid-2022 peak of 9.1 percent.

Trump has not only proposed the mass deportation of 15 million to 20 million undocumented migrants but also restricting the inflow of visa-holding migrant workers too.

That, along with a wave of retiring Baby Boomers – an estimated 10,000 of whom are exiting the workforce every day – would put pressure on wages as it did during the pandemic, a trend that only recently started to ease.

“We can assume he will throw enough sand into the gears of the immigration process so you have meaningfully less immigration, which is inflationary,” Yaros said.

Since labour costs and inflation are two important measures that the US Federal Reserve weighs when setting its benchmark interest rate, the central bank could announce further rate hikes, or at least wait longer to cut rates.

That would make recession a “serious threat once again”, according to Moody’s.

Adding to those inflationary concerns are Trump’s proposals to extend his 2017 tax cuts and further lower the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 20 percent.

While Trump’s proposed tariff hikes would offset some lost revenue, they would not make up the shortfall entirely.

According to Moody’s, the US government would generate $1.7 trillion in revenue from Trump’s tariffs while his tax cuts would cost $3.4 trillion.

Yaros said government spending is also likely to rise as Republicans seek bigger defence budgets and Democrats push for greater social expenditures, further stoking inflation.

If President Joe Biden is re-elected, economists expect no philosophical change in his approach to import taxes. They think he will continue to use targeted tariff increases, much like the recently announced 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and solar panels, to help US companies compete with government-supported Chinese firms.

With Trump’s tax cuts set to expire in 2025, a second Biden term would see some of those cuts extended, but not all, Colyar said. Primarily, the tax cuts to higher earners like those making more than $400,000 a year would expire.

Although Biden has said he would hike corporate taxes from 21 percent to 28 percent, given the divided Congress, it is unlikely he would be able to push that through.

The contrasting economic visions of the two presidential candidates have created unwelcome uncertainty for businesses, Colyar said.

“Firms and investors are having a hard time staying on top of [their plans] given the two different ways the US elections could go,” Colyar said.

“In my entire tenure, geopolitical risk has never been such an important consideration as it is today,” he added.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

China Stainless Steel Mogul Fights to Avoid a Second Collapse

Published

 on

Chinese metal tycoon Dai Guofang’s first steel empire was brought down by a government campaign to rein in market exuberance, tax evasion accusations and a spell behind bars. Two decades on, he’s once again fighting for survival.

A one-time scrap-metal collector, he built and rebuilt a fortune as China boomed. Now with the economy cooling, Dai faces a debt crisis that threatens the future of one of the world’s top stainless steel producers, Jiangsu Delong Nickel Industry Co., along with plants held by his wife and son. Its demise would send ripples through the country’s vast manufacturing sector and the embattled global nickel market.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending