On China; Also, Venting About Misconceptions From The Right
On China; Also, Venting About Misconceptions From The Right
Rant #16(Opinion)
Originally March 20,2020; Posted March 23, 2020
Hence the reality of globalism: that in the end its benefits may not appear as tangible as its downsides. Not every move to globalize a nation's economy works to that country's benefit, as we have seen with the loss of American manufacturing jobs--though other factors have contributed to that loss to, like automation. Blaming invisible forces has less appeal to a demagogue though, and so pointing the finger at China or immigrants gets him a larger pool of support. Ultimately, globalization benefits the US in a sector that makes up a larger portion of our economy than manufacturing: services. Agriculture and manufacturing make up a relatively small framgent of jobs in America compared to other nations. 80.2% of jobs fall into this category as of 2017. This means that our country relies less on domestic factories for jobs and more on foreign factories for goods. Because we have to import more than we export, the United States has a trade deficit, with China and overall. Sounds bad, right? Actually, many economists will note that a trade deficit signals an advanced economy. Finance, education, research and development, etc that other countries use make up unusually large chunks of the American economy. Our country leads in innovation, our movies have world-renowned popularity, the New York Stock Exchange and Federal Reserve (among other American financial institutions) hold more sway over the global economy than institutions in any other country. If your appreciation for globalism will never come from the fact that international trade allows us to help lift billions of other people out of poverty, then maybe take solace in the fact that our place in the structure of globalism makes us extremely enviable and powerful. Being able to produce more plastic items doesn't do as much good as owning a multinational corporation that distributes those items. One of the largest problems from globalism arises out of its tendency to disproportionately impact a nation's economy; widening income inequaity in the United States can trace its roots in part to the expansion of foreign trade. The rich get richer much more quickly than any other socioeconomic group.
Rant #16(Opinion)
Originally March 20,2020; Posted March 23, 2020
A Trump supporter recently criticized me for what he perceived to be my stance on relations with China. Initially, the man mentioned how if Biden wins the upcoming presidential election, despite the coronavirus revealing the weakness of over-relying on China for goods, the US will not move its supply chains away from there. Whereas under Trump, our country will apparently relocate its source of manufacturing. The man boasted about how Trump has already accomplished so much with that country, and then proceeded to attack my rejection of that assessment by saying that my view (or what he believed to be my view) was some "hippy Green Party crap, opposed to the 'evil corporations,' and naive like the last 50 years of presidents."
First off, I never said anything about business owners being evil or Green Party bullshit. I am saying that the winner in November won't impact how American businesses decide to trade with China. Should corporations diversify supply chains? Undoubtedly. Will they? Most probably will not. Why? Because unhinged capitalism inherently inspires a type of laziness, a short-term solution seeking policy that rewards cutting corners until it doesn't. Sometimes, regulations don't necessarily hinder business, especially after one has been in place. Case and point: Trump scrapped numerous worthwhile environmental regulations in order to boost economic growth, which amounted to increases not dramatically different than growth figures under Obama. Nonetheless, the president doesn't have too much direct influence over where companies choose to do business. If this president made rich people want to expand their businesses, then how come the extra money from his tax cuts mainly went to stock buybacks and dividends for shareholders rather than raises for employees, new hiring or actually expanding their operations? Trickle down economics has proven itself to be an illusion time and time again, a cheap trick to convince Americans into supporting it one more time with no results to show for anyone outside of the top 10% or so. The trajectory of economic growth--stock indices, unemployment, job growth, you name it--established under the 2nd term of Obama continued unabridged under Trump until now, even with his massive deficit-widening tax cuts, worsening of foreign relations and environmental policy, which has led to an increase in 10,000 deaths per year due to the effects on air pollution alone (although the person he put in charge of the air quality committee doesn't believe air pollution has effects on human health, so, there you go). Sure, the tax breaks could have been structured to reward companies that don't move jobs overseas or that build new factories in the US, but according to conservative orthodoxy, "the market decides" the right thing.
If Trump really does have the "art of the deal" mastered, he certainly did not use it in his China negotiations. Had he taken advantage of his trade war to actually strike a mildly beneficial deal, I would've supported it. Some level of protectionism could benefit the United States. Furthermore, the US could've achieved some non-economic outcomes through skillful trade negotiations with China. It shows the president's level of empathy and priorities with neglecting to demand that China stop reducing freedom for Hong Kong, ending the genocide of the Uighurs, addressing their awful pollution, the theft of intellectual property, and more are things done by the People's Republic which run contrary to what Americans stand for. Things that may not lead to an immediate, tangible benefit, but that in the long-term bolster the United States' standing. Leading the effort to non-violently end a genocide makes for good international PR--and then there is of course the human aspect of it, obviously. If Trump had brought up literally any of these factors with China (other than intellectual property theft), then maybe I would have more enthusiastically supported a trade war.
However, even the basic initiation of it all was so stupid. In terms of GDP, China and the US are roughly 1:1. Had we gotten other free and friendly nations like the EU, Japan, Australia, etc to go in with us on threatening sanctions on China unless they do x, y and z, then it would have had an effect. We could have easily achieved our ends then. An Obama or a Biden could and probably would negotiate something of that caliber easily if they chose to expend their political capital on that project, but instead Trump insists on unilateralism and insulting our closest allies. Then, he's so eager to reach a deal--any deal--that agrees to this BS agricultural sales Phase 1 deal that has no actual merit. Every chance Trump has had to play things right he fails to do, China policy included, and coronavirus included.
The one thing that China does, however, is play ball at least somewhat within the construct of existing international power structures. Unlike Russia. An Obama or Joe Biden is smart enough to realize this and use it to their advantage when dealing with Beijing. Utilizing existing structures to confront Chinese actions that the United States doesn't like makes for a better method of addressing many issues, but Trump acts in a way that is impulsive and reckless, largely just for the pure optics of it. By isolating China aggressively, Beijing loses its reason for abiding by other international norms and then acts even more uncontrollably. We saw this in Iran after President Trump cut talks on the Iran nuclear deal. Of course in the most ideal scenario we don't allow that country to have a nuclear program, but we live in the real world. The best way to handle that situation would have been to get Iran to otherwise fall in line with US and international demands, giving them something to lose should they act in an unacceptable way. Luckily things with China did not deteriorate to that level. If they did, China could have weathered that much more handily. The whole global economy dodged a bullet with the way the Chinese trade war de-escalated. It would not have led to a full-scale war, though an imminent recession, surely. As with a number of other outcomes, Trump (and Americans) honestly just got lucky that it did not end differently and much, much worse.
I haven't seen Trump do much to keep jobs in this country since his inauguration, or increase growth to the 6% he boasted on the campaign trail--or 4%, or even 3%. The "successful businessman" wastes effort trying to revive dying industries rather than invest in the next generation. Coal is done. Everything Trump has done to prop it up has failed. Yet he has attempted to stifle solar and wind power, two technologies with jobs growing way faster than the national average, that pay high for people with only hs diplomas, and can be built in more places than coal mines can. Forecasts for those industries show jobs in solar and wind growing by 105% and 96% through 2026, respectively. Oh, and it's clean. Solar or wind isn't money in your pockets--at least not money that comes with the COPD and asthma of your grandchildren in 40 years. Conservatives and especially Trump clearly don't care about that aspect (the undeniable health and ecological one), but jobs are jobs whichever way you slice it. Yet this president has done everything he can to stifle the growth of budding, cutting edge industries. We could become the world leader in updating our economy for the 21st century, making ourselves the solar panel, wind turbine, and battery manufacturing hub of the world. But Trump is stuck in this backwards mid-20th century economic mindframe where we use coal, build everything ourselves and where steel tariffs are a good thing. Steel tariffs suck! Cheaper imported steel allows American businesses to spend less on construction, in theory freeing up money to hire more builders, get more business, and beyond. And beyond construction obviously.
Hence the reality of globalism: that in the end its benefits may not appear as tangible as its downsides. Not every move to globalize a nation's economy works to that country's benefit, as we have seen with the loss of American manufacturing jobs--though other factors have contributed to that loss to, like automation. Blaming invisible forces has less appeal to a demagogue though, and so pointing the finger at China or immigrants gets him a larger pool of support. Ultimately, globalization benefits the US in a sector that makes up a larger portion of our economy than manufacturing: services. Agriculture and manufacturing make up a relatively small framgent of jobs in America compared to other nations. 80.2% of jobs fall into this category as of 2017. This means that our country relies less on domestic factories for jobs and more on foreign factories for goods. Because we have to import more than we export, the United States has a trade deficit, with China and overall. Sounds bad, right? Actually, many economists will note that a trade deficit signals an advanced economy. Finance, education, research and development, etc that other countries use make up unusually large chunks of the American economy. Our country leads in innovation, our movies have world-renowned popularity, the New York Stock Exchange and Federal Reserve (among other American financial institutions) hold more sway over the global economy than institutions in any other country. If your appreciation for globalism will never come from the fact that international trade allows us to help lift billions of other people out of poverty, then maybe take solace in the fact that our place in the structure of globalism makes us extremely enviable and powerful. Being able to produce more plastic items doesn't do as much good as owning a multinational corporation that distributes those items. One of the largest problems from globalism arises out of its tendency to disproportionately impact a nation's economy; widening income inequaity in the United States can trace its roots in part to the expansion of foreign trade. The rich get richer much more quickly than any other socioeconomic group.
In summation, I don't hate Trump because I'm some hairbrain hippy. I hate him because nothing he does is intelligible. His policies go against the evidence we have on most things as well as basic human decency. Upon investigation, many including myself would be surprised how often morality and logic intersect. Common thought would have you believe that programs which help people may sound good, but cost too much and hurt the economy. Yet that doesn't represent reality in a lot of cases, which leading conservatives (maybe not Trump, but many others) must know, but intentionally dispute or discredit. Others on the right (Trump, most laypeople) tend to view macroeconomics with vision capable of seeing only 2 transactions: I give to you and now you have, plus you have and then you give to him. It goes far beyond that. Managing the world's most powerful country and largest economy is no checkers, it's all chess. And Trump can't play either.
Works Cited
-Macrotrends, US GDP Growth 1961-2020.
-Forbes, solar and wind job growth.
-Statistic Times, list of countries by GDP sector composition.
Comments
Post a Comment