iftttwall

A year and a half after President Donald Trump’s trade war with China began, the economic data is becoming irrefutable: American consumers and businesses have paid for the full cost of the tariffs, and then some.

In papers published this week, two groups of economists examined how the trade war has impacted the prices that Americans pay for imports from China, and how those higher import prices have affected American manufacturing exports. In both cases, it looks like Americans have come out behind: we are paying the full cost of the Chinese tariffs, and those higher costs have “significantly dampened U.S. export growth.”

In the first paper, economists Mary Amiti, Stephen Redding, and David Weinstein find that, “in most sectors, these U.S. tariffs have been completely passed on to U.S. firms and consumers.”

The trio of researchers—from the Federal Reserve, Princeton, and Columbia, respectively—note that this finding is somewhat surprising because tariffs typically have the consequence of forcing foreign producers to lower prices in order to stay competitive in an environment where those goods are subject to import taxes. But that hasn’t happened despite the Trump administration’s five waves of new tariffs on goods imported from China. The average U.S. tariff has increased from 1.6 percent to 5.4 percent since the trade war with China really got rolling in July 2018, but “the tariffs do not appear to be affecting foreign export prices,” the trio of economists conclude.

That directly contradicts the message that Trump and his allies have been sending since the trade war began. Peter Navarro, Trump’s top economic adviser, for example, has stubbornly maintained the fantasy that “China is bearing the entire burden of the tariffs,” even when confronted with data suggesting exactly the opposite.

Amiti, Redding, and Weinstein note that the first few months of tariff data could have been misleading for a number of reasons. Existing contracts could have created “sticky” prices that did not reflect the influence of the tariffs, for example.

Now, with 18 months of trade war data available, there’s little reason to believe Navarro’s nonsense—with one small exception.

There is some evidence that foreign steel prices did drop as a result of Trump’s tariffs—but those steel tariffs, which were imposed in March 2018, were mostly lifted midway through last year. That’s good news for steel consumers in the U.S., the economists note, but it also means the steel tariffs were ineffective at driving up the cost of foreign steel in order to boost domestic steel producers.

Indeed, that seems to have been the case. After an initial surge of optimism, the American steel industry seems to have not benefited much from the Trump administration’s protectionism. Major steel producers like U.S. Steel and Nucor have slowed production amid slackening demand, laid off some workers, and seen their stock prices tank during the past two years.

“By contrast, we find that for consumer and non-steel inputs,” the economists report, “complete tariff passthrough was immediate and then rose above 100 percent.”

In the second study, economists Kyle Handley, Fariha Kamal, and Ryan Monarch found that one-fourth of U.S. exporters—companies that accounted for more than 80 percent of U.S. exports, by value—imported products subject to tariffs during 2019. On average, the higher costs created by those tariffs equaled $900 per worker.

To understand how this works, think about a manufacturing company in the United States that imports parts from China—like AudioControl, a Seattle-based manufacturer of speakers and headphones—before doing final assembly in the United States. The trade war has hit those businesses in two ways. Tariffs on Chinese-made parts have increased the prices that businesses like AudioControl pay to purchase necessary components. Those higher costs are built into the final product, putting those American firms at a disadvantage when they sell goods overseas.

Firms have a few choices when facing those higher import costs. Some might choose to absorb them, while others might try to find alternative sources for industrial inputs. Others might simply exit the export market entirely if they can no longer compete.

That’s one reason why governments have typically tried to avoid imposing tariffs on intermediate goods that are used as inputs in the production of other goods, the three economists note. But the heaviest tariffs imposed by the U.S. against Chinese imports have fallen on exactly that sector of the economy, in part because the Trump administration has tried to avoid having tariffs hit consumer goods.

“In practice, trade policy designed to avoid tariffs on consumer goods may disproportionately impact imported inputs, spilling over to affect exports of other products to third countries,” write Handley, Kamal, and Monarch, who work at the University of Michigan, the Census Bureau, and the Federal Reserve, respectively.

When it comes to the trade war, then, it seems like there aren’t really winners and losers—just losers and bigger losers.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2N6Tw1Q
via IFTTT

Congressional hearings date back to the first Congress in 1789, and they’re supposed to educate lawmakers. But now hearings are more about scoring points.

During recent impeachment hearings, Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) shouted at least five times, “Gentleman is not recognized!” to shut down opposition points.

Republicans are ridiculous, too. Some should wish they’d been shut down. Several years ago, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R–Utah) asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg the silly question: “How do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?”

After a pause, Zuckerberg responded, “Senator, we run ads.” Hatch couldn’t figure that out on his own?

Rep. Al Green (D–Texas) interrogated Zuckerberg about groups that Facebook partners with to create a new cryptocurrency.

“How many are headed by women?” Green demanded.

“Congressman, I do not know the answer,” Zuckerberg replied.

“How many of them are minorities, Mr. Zuckerberg? … Are there any members of the LGBTQ+ community?”

Republican Steve King (R–Iowa) complained to Google’s CEO about what his granddaughter saw on an iPhone. He demanded, “how does that show up on a 7-year-old’s iPhone, who’s playing a kid’s game?” he asked.

“Congressman, the iPhone is made by a different company,” Google’s CEO had to tell King.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QwcLnl
via IFTTT

For three years, President Donald Trump’s supporters have insisted that whatever his other flaws, he is at least no warmonger, unlike his more establishment alternatives in thrall of “the blob,” the foreign policy establishment whose consensus rules Washington regardless of public opinion. That was never true. But the assassination last night of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander of the elite Quds Force, has put America on the precipice of a major new conflict, proving that Trump was at best a fickle warrior against “endless war.”

Soleimani, along with other Iran-backed militia figures, was killed at Iraq’s Baghdad International Airport in a strike ordered by President Trump. There is no question that Soleimani was a bad guy. He was the head of an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and second in command behind Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was also a shadow puppet master who got his minions—militia groups and regimes from Tehran to the Mediterranean—to run proxy wars against his enemies. He propped up the brutal regime of Bashar Assad in Syria to crush Iran’s Sunni enemies; he trained and funded Hezbollah in Lebanon to counter Israel; he stirred up a civil war in Yemen by backing the Houthis to make trouble for Saudi Arabia.

That doesn’t mean eliminating Soleimani so brazenly was anything but a reckless act that marks a major escalation in a war that Trump himself started when he tore up the Iran nuclear deal and imposed crippling sanctions on Iran. Those sanctions banned not just American but also foreign companies from buying oil and other Iranian exports. This threw Iran into a major recession, causing its currency to crash and inflation to soar 40 percent. The upshot has been widespread shortages of basic food, housing, and medicine —and rampant hunger and disease for the poorest, naturally, worst hit.

The Trump administration had hoped that this strategy of “maximum pressure” would prod fed-up Iranians to overthrow their rulers and put in place more moderate ones friendlier to America. In other words, Trump launched a war of “regime change,” too— except that instead of using military means as “the blob” might have favored, he opted for economic warfare.

But people who are struggling to keep body and soul together don’t usually launch revolutions—and Iran’s mullahs have crushed all domestic unrest with decisive force. The bigger problem, however, is that “maximum” economic warfare makes actual warfare inevitable. This is partly because no sitting regime can accept the ignominy of such hostility and partly because, in the absence of mutually beneficial commerce with enemies, the cost of retaliation greatly diminishes. As they say, if goods can’t cross borders, soldiers or bullets will.

That’s basically what’s been happening for the past few years.

Iran has attacked two tankers in the Persian Gulf, downed a U.S. drone, and in an act of sheer chutzpah in September, reportedly sabotaged Saudi Arabian oil facilities because that kingdom is its enemy and a U.S. ally. And then, last week, Soleimani used the pro-Iranian militia Kataib Hezbollah (KH) in Iraq to attack the U.S. base near Kirkuk—killing one American contractor and injuring several American and Iraqi troops.

Two days later, America struck back at five different sites, killing at least 25 KH members in Iraq. This generated massive anti-U.S. protests and the near-siege of the American embassy in Baghdad earlier this week. U.S. military authorities claim that Soleimani orchestrated all this. But it’s also the case that Iraqis are becoming wildly cynical about America’s continued troop presence whose primary purpose they see not as training Iraqi troops, as America claims, but using their country to retaliate against regional enemies.

Be that as it may, given the tinderbox-like situation in the region, the wise course would have been to lower the temperature by easing sanctions and offering to restart nuclear negotiations with the Iranian regime. Instead, Trump, who had been showing some signs of softening at one point, ended up doing the exact opposite.

Nor should this surprise anyone. Under Trump, America’s military footprint has expanded, not shrunk.

For starters, the number of American troops stationed abroad has barely budged— 198,000 under President Barack Obama and 194,000 under Trump. In Afghanistan, there are 8,500 more troops on his watch than under Obama’s. Meanwhile, Trump has sent more troops to prop up the murderous king of Saudi Arabia while backing out of his own much-ballyhooed withdrawal plan from Syria.

Trump has expanded the scope of drone warfare. Obama was no slouch when it came to drone bombing. However, Trump upped him, launching 238 drone strikes in his first two years compared to 186 by Obama at the same time in his term. Worse, Trump subsequently reauthorized the CIA to carry out its own drone bombings and rescinded an Obama-era rule requiring the agency to disclose all the civilian casualties it causes. This makes it much easier to attack countries that America isn’t technically at war with and much harder to track the death and destruction the U.S. is causing, all of which will only sow the seeds of a future backlash from those it is terrorizing.

Furthermore, far from delivering on his promise of reducing the fiscal burden of America’s foreign policy, Trump, who once called U.S. military spending “crazy,” has pushed it to levels that even the Pentagon didn’t think was imaginable. The defense, or rather offense, budget has gone up a whopping $140 billion on his watch.

But handing military authorities such lavish means while weakening accountability practically guarantees that they will find missions abroad to justify their largesse. At least to some extent that is what’s going on with the decision to escalate hostilities with Iran.

The only thing that’s certain right now is that Iran will not take this lying down. The mullahs have pledged to retaliate “forcefully.” The question is whether they’ll do so overtly or through Soleimani’s legacy of proxies.

It is unclear whether Trump was ever really serious about ending endless wars. But even if he was, it is not enough to merely wish for that end. He needed to also eliminate all the internal incentives that keep pushing the U.S. from one quagmire to the next. That requires patience and strategic thinking. Unfortunately, those are not Trump’s strong suits and he might have gotten America into a whole new quagmire of his own making.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39PvhPa
via IFTTT