the economics behind Trump’s appeal

Trump’s appeal

If there’s one picture that I think explains the power of Donald Trump, it’s this one:

Capture

Source:  https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/public-spending-on-labour-markets.htm#indicator-chart

The chart shows the percentage of GDP that each of the wealthy countries of the world (the OECD) spends in helping labor deal with rapid technology-induced change in the nature of work.   This is important because a central part of the standard economic argument for allowing disruptive innovation is that governments must step in to support displaced workers.  By and large that’s happening around the world.  Not in the US, though, where it seems to be an article of political faith that adjustment will somehow happen by itself.

The US is dead last in the OECD, spending about a third of what the average country does, during both Republican and Democratic administrations.  Japan, where the workforce has been shrinking for a quarter-century, is the only other country that comes close.

I’m not sure which is more telling about the American economic mindset–that Trump’s appeal is so powerful to the displaced, or that his support has come as such a total surprise.

how well preserving industries of the past pans out

Whether the Trump plan, to roll the clock back to the 1960s, is feasible is another matter, though.

The Japanese example is instructive.  That country is in many ways like the US, but with a population that’s significantly older.  As such, it can serve as an indicator of a possible Trumpish future for the US.   Unfortunately, the picture isn’t pretty.   The “Keep Japan Great” program in place since the early 1990s has resulted in almost three decades of economic stagnation, a huge increase in government debt, a sharp fall in living standards and a Millennial generation alienated and angry about the economic disaster they’re inheriting from their parents.  In 1989, Japan was the second-largest economy in the world, after the US.  It is now #4, having been surpassed by China and India and having lost a third of its size relative to the US.  National debt has risen from 70% of GDP to 250%.

 

 

the US and trade protection

tariffs and quotas

There are two main ways in which a country can shield a domestic industry from foreign competition.  Tariffs are taxes on imports, which make foreign goods more expensive for domestic purchasers.  Quotas are limits on the amount of a foreign good that can be imported over a specific time period.   The first controls the price of the foreign good, the second its availability.  Unless the quota is set at an wildly high level, tariffs and quotas have generally the same effect.

The main impact is that both allow domestic producers to raise prices.  This is very good for those working in the protected industry, which will have higher profits than before.  It’s at least mildly bad for everyone else, who will have fewer choices and must pay more for what they need.

infant industries/developing countries

There can be a legitimate place for trade protection.  A developing country, for example, may want to establish a textile manufacturing industry.  In the early days, the infant industry may not have the technical skill or economies of scale to compete with more established foreign competitors.  So the home country government may limit foreign competition for a period of time to give the new endeavor a chance to get on its feet.  Tariffs/quotas may also guard against predatory pricing by foreign firms that want to keep the local industry from ever developing into a competitor by “dumping” product at below production cost.

effects of protection

There are several:

–overall GDP growth slows; domestic users of imported goods or their domestic substitutes now pay higher prices and are most likely worse off.  This economic loss may be hard to trace back to the protection, making the tactic more attractive to elected officials

–economic energy shifts to the protected industries, which raise prices and become more profitable.  In many instances, however, the protected industry doesn’t modernize but simply collects the extra revenue and continues its outmoded/inefficient practices.  So it falls progressively further behind world standards, with it and domestic consumers ending up worse off in the long run vs. having had no protection.  The domestic auto/light truck industry in the US during the 1980s is a prime example.

–affected parties figure out how to deal with tariffs.  In the case of the 25% US tariff on light trucks imported into the US, protection forced foreign automakers to establish plants in the US to serve the market.  In the case of current US tariffs on imported aluminum and steel, on the other hand, manufacturers who use these inputs have cancelled US expansion plans and have begun to shift production to other countries.

–we can see the negative long-term effects of protectionism around the world in the ossified telecom industry in the EU, the pickup truck business in the US, the semi-bankrupt state-owned industries in China or the senescent keiretsu structure in Japan.  Generally speaking, except for infant industries in developing countries, the state planning that tariffs exemplify seems to have worked out pretty badly just about everywhere in the OECD.

retaliation

When a country alters the trade status quo by applying a tariff or import quotas, the affected countries most often respond in a tit-for-tat fashion.  The original tariff is intended to help a politically important industry in the home country.  The response, called retaliation, has the aim of hurting a politically important industry in the home country.  If it also helps an industry in the original target, fine;  if not, also fine.  In this sense, retaliation is different from the initial tariff.

After the US placed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, for example, the EU has responded with a retaliatory tariff on imports of Harley Davidson motorcycles (an early supporter of Mr. Trump) made in the US.  China has placed a similar retaliatory tariff on US soybeans.  HOG has since announced plans to move manufacturing of Harleys for export to the EU from the US to Thailand.  Chinese soybean buyers have shifted to Brazilian output, a loss that US farmers worry may end up being permanent.

 

Next time:  the Trump tariff plans, as far as I can figure out, and stock market implications

 

 

 

 

 

the administration, the economy and the stock market

I’m taking off my hat as an American and putting on my hat as an investor for this post.

That is, I’m putting aside questions like whether the Trump agenda forms a coherent whole, whether Mr. Trump understands much/any of what he’s doing, whether Trump is implementing policies whispered in his ear by backers in the shadows–and why congressmen of both parties have been little more than rubber stamps for his proposals.

My main concern is the effect of his economic policies on stocks.

the tax cut

The top corporate tax rate was reduced from 35% to 21% late last year.  In addition, the wealthiest individuals received tax breaks, a continuation of the “trickle down” economics that has been the mainstay of Washington tax policy since the 1980s.

The new 21% rate is about average for the rest of the world.  This suggests that US corporations will no longer see much advantage in reincorporating abroad in low-tax jurisdictions.  The evidence so far is that they are also dismantling the elaborate tax avoidance schemes they have created by holding their intellectual property, and recognizing most of their profits, in foreign low-tax jurisdictions.  (An aside:  this should have a positive effect on the trade deficit since we are now recognizing the value of American IP as part of the cost of goods made by American companies overseas (think: smartphones.)

My view is that this development was fully discounted in share prices last year.

The original idea was that tax reform would also encompass tax simplification–the elimination of at least part of the rats nest of special interest tax breaks that plagues the federal tax code.  It’s conceivable that Mr. Trump could have used his enormous power over the majority Republican Party to achieve this laudable goal.  But he seems to have made no effort to do so.

Two important consequences of this last:

–the tax cut is a beg reduction in government income, meaning that it is a strong stimulus to economic activity.  That would have been extremely useful, say, nine years ago, but at full employment and above-trend growth, it puts the US at risk of overheating.

–who pays for this?  The bill’s proponents claim that the tax cut will pay for itself through higher growth.  The more likely outcome as things stand now, I think, is that Millennials will inherit a country with a least a trillion dollars more in sovereign debt than would otherwise be the case.

One positive consequence of the untimely fiscal stimulus is that it makes room for the Fed to remove its monetary stimulus (it now has rates at least 100 basis points lower than they should be) faster, and with greater confidence that will do no harm.

Two complications:  Mr. Trump has begun to jawbone the Fed not to do this, apparently thinking a supercharged, unstable economy will be to his advantage.  Also, higher rates raise the cost of borrowing to fund a higher government budget deficit + burgeoning government debt.

 

Tomorrow: the messy trade arena

trade, tariffs and Harley Davidson (HOG)

Modern economics has been founded in study of what caused the Great Depression of the 1930s, with an eye to preventing a recurrence of this devastating period.  We know very clearly that tariffs and quotas are, generally speaking, bad things.  They reduce overall economic activity in the countries that apply them.  Yes, politically favored industries do often get a benefit, but the cost to everybody else is many times larger.  We also know that the use of tariffs and quotas can snowball into a storm of retaliation and counter-retaliation that can do widespread damage for a long time.

My point is that it’s inconceivable that high-ranking public officials in Washington don’t know this.

 

HOG motorcycles are Baby Boomer counterculture icon.  The company’s traditional domestic male customer base is aging, however, and losing the strength and sense of balance required to operate these heavy machines.  At the same time, HOG has had difficulty in attracting younger customers, or women or minority groups to its offerings.  So it’s an economically more fragile firm, I think, than the consensus realizes.

HOG has been damaged to some degree by the Trump tariffs on aluminum and steel, which are important raw materials.  (As I understand them, the tariffs are ostensibly to address Chinese theft of US intellectual property, although they are being levied principally against Japan and the EU.  ???)

Completely predictably, the EU is retaliating against the tariffs.  In particular, it is levying its own 25% tariff on HOG motorcycles imported from the US.  This affects about 20% of Harley’s output.  HOG says the levy will cost it $100 million a year in lost income, implying that all of the EU-bound Harleys are now made in the US.  HOGs response is to shift production targeted for the EU to its overseas plants.  My guess is that this will take 1000+ jobs out of the US.

In contrast to the job loss from this one company, public reports indicate the total job gain from the steel/aluminum tariffs to be about 800 workers being recalled to previously idle steel/aluminum plants.

 

Mr. Trump’s response to the HOG announcement was to threaten punitive tariffs on any imports of foreign-made Harleys–a move that could threaten the viability of HOG’s network of around 700 independent dealerships.  7000 jobs at risk?

The stock market declined sharply on the day of the HOG announcement.  I think that’s because the HOG story is a shorthand illustration of how tariffs, and quotas, cause net losses to the country as a whole, although they may bring benefits to a politically favored few.

 

A second negative effect of trade protection is a long-term one.  My experience is that most often the protected industry, relieved of immediate competitive pressure, ceases to evolve.  After a few years, consumers become willing to pay the increased price to get a (better) imported product.  In my mind, General Motors is the poster child for this.

 

Stock market implications?  …avoid Industrials.  The obvious beneficiary of Washington’s ill-thought out trade policy is IT.  For the moment, however, I think that this group is expensive enough that Consumer Discretionary and Energy are better areas to pick through.

 

 

OPEC and $80 oil: last week’s meeting

$80 per barrel oil

Over the past year the price of a barrel of crude oil has risen from $50 to $80.  The latter figure is substantially below the $100+ that “black gold” averaged during 2011-2014, but hugely higher than the low of $25-minus thee years ago.

conventional wisdom upended

Two pieces of conventional wisdom about oil have changed during the past half-decade:

–effective shale oil production technology has shelved the previous, nearly religious, belief in the near-term peaking of world oil productive capacity.  More than that,

–the development of viable electric cars has won the world over to the idea that a substantial amount of future transportation demand is going to be met by non-petroleum vehicles.

new meaning for “peak oil”

The “peak oil” worry used to be about the day when demand would outstrip supply (as emerging economies switch from bicycles/motorcycles to several cars per household–just as conventional oil deposits would begin to give up the ghost).  The term now means the day (in 2040?) when demand hits a permanent peak, and then begins to fall as renewable energy supplants fossil fuels.

new OPEC solidarity

When Saudi Arabia, the most influential member of OPEC, said during the recent supply glut that its target for the oil price was $80 a barrel, I thought the figure was much too high.  Why?  I expected that the cartel wouldn’t stick to mutually-agreed output restrictions (totaling 1.8 million daily barrels) for the years needed for oversupply to dry up and the price of output to rise.  That was wrong.

I think the main reason for OPEC’s uncharacteristic sticktoitiveness (first time I ever typed that word) is the realization that petroleum is going to yield to renewables as firewood was supplanted by coal in the mid-nineteenth century and coal was replaced by oil in the mid-twentieth.

There are other factors, though.  The collapse of the Venezuelan government means that country now produces about a million barrels a day less than two years ago.  Also, Mr. Trump’s aversion to all things Obama has prompted him to pull the US out of the Iranian nuclear agreement and reinstate an embargo.  This likely means some fall in Iranian output from its current 4.5 million or so daily barrels, as sanctions go back into effect.  Anticipation of this last has upped today’s oil price by something like $10 a barrel.

adding 600,000 barrels to OPEC daily output

Just prior to the Trump decision on Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia were suggesting publicly that the coalition of oil producers eventually restore as much as 1.5 million barrels of daily production, as a way of keeping prices from rising further.  Mr. Trump has reportedly asked the two to make any current increase large enough to offset the $10 rise his Iran action has sparked.

Unsurprisingly, his plea appears to have fallen on deaf ears.  Last Friday the cartel announced plans to put 600,000 barrels of daily output back on the market–subject, I think, to the condition that the amount will be adjusted, up or down, so that the price remains in the $75 – $80 range.

optimizing revenue

The old OPEC dynamic was Saudi Arabia, which had perhaps a century’s worth of oil reserves and therefore wanted to keep prices steady and low vs. everyone else, whose reserve life was much shorter and who wanted the highest possible current price, even if that hastened consumers’ move to alternatives.

Today’s dynamic is different, chiefly because the Saudis now realize that the age of renewable energy is imminent.  Today all parties want the highest possible current price, provided it is not so high that it accelerates the trend to renewables.  The consensus belief is that the tipping point is around $100 a barrel.  $80 seems to give enough safety margin that it has become the Saudi target.