Why Trump’s zero tariffs & zero subsides is a pipe dream

Trump campaigned on getting better trading deals starting with the renegotiation of NAFTA.  The loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs is the main reason that the Trump administration has criticized NAFTA and other trade deals. According to the CFR, the U.S. auto sector lost roughly 350,000 jobs between 1994 and 2016. Many of those jobs were taken up by workers in Mexico, where the auto sector added over 400,000 jobs in the same period.

A few reasons why zero tariffs alone don’t work

  • Labour intensive manufacturing will tend to locate where employee wages and benefits are the lowest.
  • Local and federal tax rates are another factor when it comes to plant locations.
  • Input costs like regulations, transportation and power rates are just a few examples of factors in plant location considerations.
  • It makes economic sense to locate near the biggest market for the product or service.

Bottom line, can the Trump administration force China and Mexico to pay $25.00 a hour to assemble cars? Are American consumers willing to pay an extra $1,400 to $7,000 for a new car if Trump imposes 25% tariff on the auto sector? How about $3,000 for a new I-phone that is made in America?

For argument sake, I do believe that reducing tariffs among developed countries does make sense. However, the other problem is fluctuations  in currencies which governments in general have little or no control over. For example, only yesterday, President Trump doubled the tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum because of the drastic fall in value of the Turkish lira.

The hard fact is zero tariffs are not feasible and corporations are not patriotic. Corporate executives are more concern about keeping their shareholders happy and ensuring a very generous executive compensation package. Wage growth in the U.S. has been stagnant for many years and there are no signs that the corporate tax cuts have trickled down to employee wages.

Is eliminating government subsides even possible?

My short answer is no. The great recession of 2008-09 would have turned into another great depression if governments’ world-wide didn’t bail out their troubled banks. How many jobs would have been lost in the auto sector if the U.S. government didn’t bail out Chrysler and GM? (Does too big to fail, sound familiar)

Severe weather conditions make it difficult for governments to get rid of agricultural subsidies. Plus, governments can use subsidies to ensure that farmers produce the right amount of crops or meat to serve their population. There is also a safety issue and a cost benefit to using your own food sources rather than relying on importing food from other countries.

I could go on and on with other examples of industries that require some form of government help. Not all subsides are bad. Think about the millions of people who use public transportation. How expensive would it be, if it wasn’t subsidized by government?

All comments are welcome!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Market correction when Trump sends a NAFTA withdrawal letter

FILE PHOTO: Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland (centre) Mexico’s Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo (Left) and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (right) REUTERS/Chris Wattie/File Photo

I disagree with most media and political pundits that believe Trump is unpredictable. He campaigned on America first which includes being tough on illegal immigration and ripping up NAFTA. His voting base believes that these two issues are responsible for low wages and poor job opportunities in the United States.

It was obvious to me that the U.S. government shutdown was caused by Trump who set the March 5th deadline for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). He is using Dreamers as a bargaining chip to get funding for more border security and for his idiotic wall. Eighty per cent of Americans don’t want Dreamers to be deported. If Trump really cared, he would have informed the House of Representatives to draft a by partisan bill to solely deal with DACA.

In my humble opinion, Trump is just looking for an excuse to rip up NAFTA. Donald Trump’s protectionist leanings have been obvious since before the U.S. presidential election. U.S. negotiators are showing few signs of backing down from unrealistic demands on automotive content rules, the chapter 19 dispute mechanism and a five-year sunset clause that have left NAFTA teetering on the brink.

Canada and Mexico have rejected most of the U.S. proposals for NAFTA reforms, leaving officials with a big job if they are to bridge the large differences in Montreal. Negotiations are due to wrap up at the end of March.

Protectionist moves as U.S. imposes tariffs on the following imports

  • Softwood lumber (Canada)
  • C-series planes (Canada)
  • Pulp & Paper (Canada)
  • Washing machines (South Korea)
  • Solar cells & modules (China)

Canada is firing back by bringing a trade complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO) despite the fact that the president has been particularly critical of the WTO and its system for dispute settlement.

A former U.S. trade representative says he’s hoping that a recent wide-ranging trade complaint launched by the Canadian government against the United States won’t “end up blowing up in their face” at the NAFTA negotiating table.

Adding more fuel to the fire, Canada has agreed to a resurrected a version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and will sign on to the deal. The deal, renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, comes after talks in Japan this week with the 11 countries (including Mexico) that are still committed to the deal.

“We are happy to confirm the achievement of a significant outcome on culture as well as an improved arrangement on autos with Japan, along with the suspension of many intellectual property provisions of concern to Canadian stakeholders,” said International Trade Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne in a statement.

Will these moves strengthen Canada’s position at the negotiation table with the United States or will it force Trump to play his withdrawal card?

My bet is that picking a fight with Trump will result in him sending a NAFTA withdrawal letter to both Canada & Mexico which will cause a stock market correction.  In my humble opinion, it is only a question of when!