Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Saturday, February 1, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 230)

Consumer confidence 3D gear graphic reporting the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index.

Consumer confidence 3D gear graphic reporting the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index.

The Conference Board said the Consumer Confidence Index eased slightly in March but remained at a very strong 127.7 (1985=100), down from 130.0 in February. The Present Situation Index ticked down slightly from 161.2 to 159.9, while the Expectations Index fell from 109.2 last month to 106.2 this month.

“Consumer confidence declined moderately in March after reaching an 18-year high in February,” said Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board. “Consumers’ assessment of current conditions declined slightly, with business conditions the primary reason for the moderation.”

Worth noting, the cutoff date for these preliminary results was March 15.

For current conditions, the percentage saying business conditions are “good” increased from 36.5% to 37.9%. But those claiming business conditions are “bad” also increased, from 11.3% to 13.4%. Those claiming jobs are “plentiful” increased from 39.1% to 39.9%, while those claiming jobs are “hard to get” edged down from 15.1% to 14.9%.

This bodes very well for employment, as it mirrors other data indicating demand for labor is very strong.

“Consumers’ short-term expectations also declined, including their outlook for the stock market, but overall expectations remain quite favorable,” Ms. Franco added. “Despite the modest retreat in confidence, index levels remain historically high and suggest further strong growth in the months ahead.”

The percentage of consumers anticipating business conditions will improve over the next 6 months fell from 25.0% to 23.0%, while those expecting business conditions will worsen increased from 9.4% to 9.8%.

The proportion expecting more jobs in the months ahead fell from 22.4% to 19.1%, while those thinking there will be fewer jobs slightly rose from 12.4% to 12.6%. Regarding their short-term income prospects, the percentage of consumers expecting an improvement decreased from 23.5% to 22.0%.

However, the proportion expecting a decrease also declined, from 8.6% to 7.2%.

The Conference Board said the Consumer Confidence

A U.S. flag decorates a for-sale sign at a home in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, August 21, 2012. (Photo: Reuters)

A U.S. flag decorates a for-sale sign at a home in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, August 21, 2012. (Photo: Reuters)

The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Index (HPI), covering all 9 U.S. census divisions, posted a 6.2% annual gain in January, down from 6.3% in the previous month but stronger than the median forecast.

The 10-City Composite annual increase came in at 6.0%, unchanged from the previous month, and the 20-City Composite posted a 6.4% year-over-year gain, up from 6.3%. That beat the median forecast.

“The home price surge continues,” says David M. Blitzer, Managing Director and Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. “Since the market bottom in December 2012, the S&P Corelogic Case-Shiller National Home Price index has climbed at a 4.7% real – inflation adjusted – annual rate. That is twice the rate of economic growth as measured by the GDP.”

Sixteen of the 20 cities reported increases in January before seasonal adjustment, while all 20 cities reported increases after seasonal adjustment. The National Index posted a month-over-month gain of 0.05% in January, before seasonal adjustments. The 10-City and 20-City Composites both reported increases of 0.3%.

After seasonal adjustment, the National Index recorded a 0.5% month-over-month increase in January. The 10-City and 20-City Composites posted 0.7% and 0.8% month-over-month increases, respectively. That’s also slightly higher than the median forecast.

There were few, if any, really weak data sets from the various cities in the report.

Seattle, up 12.9% in the last year, continued to lead the way with the largest gains, followed by an 11.1% gain in Las Vegas. Even Chicago and Washington, the cities with the smallest price gains, saw a 2.4% annual increase in home prices.

Twelve of the 20 cities reported greater price increases in the year ending January 2018 juxtaposed to the year ending December 2017.

As we’ve seen with other housing market indicators, low inventories and low vacancy rates are the two factors pushing price increases.

“The current months-supply — how many months at the current sales rate would be needed to absorb homes currently for sale — is 3.4; the average since 2000 is 6.0 months, and the high in July 2010 was 11.9,” Mr. Blitzer added. “Currently, the homeowner vacancy rate is 1.6% compared to an average of 2.1% since 2000; it peaked in 2010 at 2.7%. Despite limited supplies, rising prices, and higher mortgage rates, affordability is not a concern.”

“Affordability measures published by the National Association of Realtors show that a family with a median income could comfortably afford a mortgage for a median priced home.”

The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Index

Mark Zuckerberg gestures while addressing the audience during a meeting of the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) CEO Summit in Lima, Peru, November 19, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

Mark Zuckerberg gestures while addressing the audience during a meeting of the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) CEO Summit in Lima, Peru, November 19, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has 105,631,187 followers on his social media platform, but he’s short on friends right now. Only 31% of American Adults now have a favorable opinion of the founder and CEO of Facebook, according to a new poll.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds only 8% have a Very Favorable view of him. By party, only 30 of Republicans, 37% of Democrats and 25% of unaffiliated voters have a favorable opinion of Mr. Zuckerberg.

In June 2012, when Facebook went public, 43% had a favorable and 9% a very unfavorable opinion of him. Now, 48% view Mr. Zuckerberg unfavorably, including 20% who share a Very Unfavorable view.

Roughly 1 in 5 Americans (21%) remain undecided.

Interestingly, despite the current controversy, regular users of Facebook have a higher opinion of Zuckerberg than those who rarely or never use the social media network.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on March 21-22, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. See methodology.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has 105,631,187 followers

A International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) worker gestures at the General Motors Assembly Plant in Arlington, Texas June 9, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

A International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) worker gestures at the General Motors Assembly Plant in Arlington, Texas June 9, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

The Dallas Fed Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey cooled in March to 21.4, though factory activity continued to expand. The production index, a key measure of state manufacturing conditions, declined 15 points to 12.7, indicating a reduction in output growth.

The new orders and growth rate of orders indexes declined by 8.3 and 3.8, respectively, while the capacity utilization index fell to 9.6 and the shipments index lost 23 points to 9.3.

However, even though these indexes are down sharply from their February readings, they are well above their post-recession averages.

Expectations regarding future business conditions remained optimistic in March. The indexes of future general business activity and future company outlook fell to 32.0 and 30.9, respectively. But both remained significantly above their average readings, as well.

Other indexes for future manufacturing activity showed mixed movements but remained highly positive.

The Dallas Fed Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey

U.S. President Donald Trump (third from right) and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (right) meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin (third from left) and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (left) at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on July 7. (Photo: Kremlin via Reuters)

U.S. President Donald Trump (third from right) and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (right) meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin (third from left) and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (left) at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on July 7. (Photo: Kremlin via Reuters)

The Trump Administration expelled 60 Russian diplomats and intelligence operatives from the United States, 48 from the embassy and 12 from the United Nations (UN). The U.S. has also demanded that the Russian consulate in Seattle be shut down and provided one week for the individuals involved to comply.

“Today President Donald J. Trump ordered the expulsion of dozens of Russian intelligence officers from the United States and the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle due to its proximity to one of our submarine bases and Boeing,” the White House said in a statement.

“The United States takes this action in conjunction with our NATO allies and partners around the world in response to Russia’s use of a military-grade chemical weapon on the soil of the United Kingdom, the latest in its ongoing pattern of destabilizing activities around the world.”

The U.S. State Department said Russia used a military-grade nerve agent to attempt to murder a British citizen and his daughter in Salisbury on March 4. The attack put countless civilian lives at risk and in fact resulted in serious injury to 3 people, including a police officer.

European Union (EU) leaders agreed last week that it was highly likely Russia was behind the nerve agent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in southern England. The United Kingdom (UK) expelled 23 Russian diplomats last week, though Russia denies any role in the attack in Salisbury.

Fourteen nations belonging to the EU and Ukraine have also announced expulsions. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said his decision was made “in the spirit of solidarity with our British partners and transatlantic allies and in coordination with EU countries”.

The total for each nation now stands at:

 United States 60
 Ukraine 13
 Germany 4
 Poland 4
 France 4
 Lithuana 3
 Czech Republic 3
 Netherlands 2
 Latvia 1
 Estonia 1

“Today’s actions make the United States safer by reducing Russia’s ability to spy on Americans and to conduct covert operations that threaten America’s national security,” the White House added. “With these steps, the United States and our allies and partners make clear to Russia that its actions have consequences. The United States stands ready to cooperate to build a better relationship with Russia, but this can only happen with a change in the Russian government’s behavior.”

The Trump Administration expelled 60 Russian diplomats

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Pensacola, Fla., Friday, Dec. 8, 2017. (Photo: AP)

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Pensacola, Fla., Friday, Dec. 8, 2017. (Photo: AP)

More voters than ever now say that the media is actively trying to block President Donald Trump from passing his agenda, rather than report news in an unbiased manner. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of likely voters believe when most reporters write or talk about the president, they are trying to block him from passing his agenda, up from 44% a year ago and 47% in August.

Just five percent (5%) now think most reporters are trying to help Trump pass his agenda, down from 10% a month into his presidency. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe they’re just trying to report the news in an unbiased manner.

As has typically been the result, 44% of all voters think the average reporter is more liberal than they are. Just 14% think the average reporter is more conservative, while 28% think they are about the same ideologically.

Another 14% are not sure, roughly unchanged.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major political party feel most reporters are trying to block the president, while 59% of Democrats say most report the news in an unbiased manner. But five percent (5%) or less of voters in all parties believe that most reporters are trying to help the president pass his agenda.

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 15 & 18, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. See methodology.

More voters than ever now say that

SUV parts are fabricated in the stamping facility at the General Motors Assembly Plant on June 9, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

SUV parts are fabricated in the stamping facility at the General Motors Assembly Plant on June 9, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

The Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) rose to +0.88 in February from +0.02 in January, beating the 0.05% median forecast. All four broad categories of indicators increased and 3 of the 4 categories made positive contributions to the index.

The index’s three-month moving average, CFNAI-MA3, increased to +0.37 in February from +0.16 in January.

The CFNAI Diffusion Index, which is also a three-month moving average, moved up to +0.28 in February from +0.16 in January. Sixty-three of the 85 individual indicators made positive contributions to the CFNAI in February, while 22 made negative contributions.

Sixty-one indicators improved from January to February, while 23 indicators deteriorated and one was unchanged. Of the indicators that improved, nine made negative contributions.

The Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI)

File: The $4 trillion U.S. federal budget proposed by Barack Obama in 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

File: The $4 trillion U.S. federal budget proposed by Barack Obama in 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

Ever since there was a deal to bust the budget caps back in February, I knew it was just a matter of time before Congress and the White House responded with an odious orgy of new spending.

Some people told me I was being too pessimistic.

After all, the President’s Office of Management and Budget has a big banner on the budget webpage. It boldly states that President Trump is going to “reverse the trend of rising government spending.”

But I’ve learned to discount the rhetoric of politicians. It’s more important to look at the actual budget numbers in legislation that the President signs into law.

And that’s what Trump did yesterday, giving his approval to a bill that funds the parts of the budget included in annual appropriations.

So did he “reverse the trend”?

The good news is that the answer is yes. But the bad news is that he reversed the trend by increasing spending faster than Obama.

I’m not joking. Courtesy of the Committee for a Responsible Budget, here are the year-over-year numbers for various parts of the bill.* This table tells you everything you need to know about the grotesque recklessness of Washington.

 

An overall increase of 12.9%!

But maybe spending is climbing so rapidly because the cost of living has suddenly jumped?

Nope, that’s not an excuse. The CRFB put together a list of the major inflation projections. As you can see, there’s not the slightest sign of a spike in prices in either 2018 or 2019.

Indeed, it turns out that the Republican Congress and the Republican President decided to increase spending six times faster than needed to keep pace with inflation. Six times.

Yes, we can definitely say the spending trend has been reversed. Just not in a good way.

So who should be blamed, congressional Republicans or Trump?

The simple answer is both.

Trump is responsible because he could veto budget-busting bills. All he would need to do is tell the crowd on Capitol Hill that he is perfectly happy to close down the non-essential parts of the federal government until he gets some responsible legislation. Sooner or later, the pro-spending crowd would have to cave.

That being said, congressional GOPers also deserve blame.

It’s a failure by the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee who are motivated by a desire to spend the maximum amount of money. It’s a failure of GOP leadership for not removing members from that Committee if they don’t agree to some level of spending restraint. It’s also a failure of leadership that they don’t get conservatives and moderates in a room and hammer out a common approach that would restrain the growth of Leviathan. And it’s a failure of the individual Senators and Representatives for not upholding the Constitution and not doing what’s right for the country.

But this also brings me back to Trump. If the President credibly drew a line in the sand and said “I’ll veto any spending bill that is over X”, that would change behavior on Capitol Hill. But Members of Congress believe (correctly, it seems) that Trump has no interest in fiscal restraint. So without any leadership from the White House, you get an every-man-for-himself, grab-as-much-pork-as-you-can attitude among lawmakers that makes it virtually impossible for leadership to pursue an effective strategy.

The net result is that politicians win, the special interests win, and the bureaucracy wins.

And who loses? Well, look in the mirror for the answer.

*The data in the CRFB table is for “budget authority” rather than “budget outlays.” These are closely related concepts, but technically different. When Congress approves “budget authority,” it is basically giving money to an agency. When the agencies then spend the money, it is “budget outlays.”

The omnibus spending bill signed by President

Emmanuel Macron, head of the political movement En Marche !, or Onwards !, and candidate for the 2017 presidential election, attends a campaign rally in Lyon, France, February 4, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

Emmanuel Macron, head of the political movement En Marche !, or Onwards !, and candidate for the 2017 presidential election, attends a campaign rally in Lyon, France, February 4, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

In last year’s French presidential election between Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen, I joked that voters should choose the socialist over the socialist, but made a serious point that Macron – despite having been part of Hollande’s disastrous government – was preferable since there was at least a hope of market-oriented reform.

…the chance of Macron being good are greater than zero. After all, it was the left-wing parties that started the process of pro-market reforms in Australia and New Zealand. And it was a Social Democrat government in Germany that enacted the labor-market reforms that have been so beneficial for that nation.

And after Macron won the election, I reviewed some of his initiatives to restrain government, including plans to reduce the burden of government spending, lower France’s corporate tax rate, and to shrink the size of the bureaucracy.

His ideas sounded so good that I wrote – only partly in jest – that “I wish the Republicans in Washington were as sensible as these French socialists.”

We’re not quite to the one-year anniversary of his election, but let’s take a look at Macron’s track record. And we’ll start with a very encouraging report from the New York Times.

…if France’s young president, Emmanuel Macron, has made one thing clear, it is that he is not afraid to shake up France and take on its venerable institutions. Now it is the turn of the heavily subsidized and deeply indebted French rail system. Mr. Macron says he wants to erase the railway workers’ special status, which gives them more generous benefits than almost any other workers, including a guarantee of early retirement. In doing so, he has set himself a new and formidable challenge in his expanding campaign to reshape France’s society and economy, which started last year with a law that made it easier for private companies to hire and fire workers, a near revolution for France.

Macron has a difficult task.

…the railway workers are a public-sector work force, one of the most powerful in the country, with a chokehold on as many as five million riders daily. When they go on strike, the whole country feels it. …rail unions have already pledged to join a strike by public-sector employees planned for Thursday… The rail workers then plan weeks of strikes starting in April that will be staged on a rolling basis.

Here’s some of what Macron wants to fix.

French rail workers’ current, ample benefits — including in some cases, the option of retiring at 52 — date to the first half of the 20th century, when many railway jobs involved hard, physical labor… Mr. Macron…to push for a broader overhaul that, for new hires, would end advantages like guaranteed jobs, automatic pay raises and generous social security benefits. …The French rail system is both heavily subsidized and deeply in debt, to the tune of 55 billion euros, or about $68 billion.

And if the French President succeeds, there are other reforms on the horizon.

Mr. Macron has pledged to follow the railway plan with an overhaul of the unemployment system later in the year. Next year he intends to take on the French pension system. …changing the employment terms for railway workers appears to be part of a larger crusade to push French workers into the 21st century.

Good. Similar reforms were very beneficial for German workers and the German economy, so I’m sure Macron’s proposals will produce good results in France.

Writing last October for CapX, Diego Zuluaga expressed optimism about Macron’s agenda.

…it is the French government that is tackling the big barriers to growth and dynamism that have stifled their economy since 1975. …Emmanuel Macron…has vowed to attack this status quo. He aims to deconstruct the onerous French labour market law, the infamous Code du travail. This is a 1,600-page, 10,000-article gargantuan piece of legislation which is blamed for clobbering employment in France over the past 25 years. …Macron may be able to deliver considerable reforms when it comes to the labour market. His cabinet intends to move a larger share of collective bargaining to the firm level, remove the requirement of union representation for small- and medium-sized businesses, limit severance pay – right now it averages €24,000 per dismissal – to give employers greater certainty about the costs of hiring… Spain reformed its dysfunctional hiring and firing regulations in 2012, and robust employment growth followed. Now, it is long-ossified France that is taking up the baton.

If you stopped reading at this point, you might conclude that Macron is a French version of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.

But that would be a considerable exaggeration. The French President also is pushing some questionable policies, such as higher taxes on luxury goods. But, in Macron’s defense, those class-warfare taxes are an offset for the abolition of the wealth tax, which was a very good reform.

Emmanuel Macron’s administration will propose a tax on luxury yachts, supercars and precious metals in France’s 2018 budget. Lawmakers will propose amendments after critics attacked the President’s move to scrap the wealth tax in France. Mr Macron abolished the tax, which has been seen as a symbol of social justice for the left but blamed by others for driving thousands of millionaires abroad. …The wealth tax, introduced by the Socialists in the 1980s, was levied on individuals with assets above 1.3 million euros (£1.2 million).

Since I’m not familiar with the details (i.e., do these changes result in a revenue-neutral shift, a net tax cut, or a net tax increase?), there’s no way to determine if swapping the wealth tax for luxury taxes is a net positive or a negative. Though I assume the overall effect is positive because wealth taxes are a very bad idea and luxury taxes, while self-destructive, generally are futile.

But this doesn’t let Macron off the hook. Even if we decide that he’s a pro-market reformer inside his country, he has a very bad habit of promoting statism at the European level.

The Wall Street Journal opined unfavorably last year on his plan for greater centralization.

…the French President issued a call for more, more and more Europe. …His EU would be responsible for many of the functions traditionally performed by a nation-state, such as defense, taxation, migration control and economic regulation. …The problem is…Mr. Macron’s dreams of fiscal and economic union. He wants to create an EU finance ministry, funded by corporate and other taxes, that can spend money across the bloc with minimal interference from national capitals. Mr. Macron also wants to harmonize—eurospeak for raise—corporate taxes across the EU. He’d further establish Franco-German regulatory excess as the benchmark for the rest of the EU… This is a recipe for political failure because Europeans already know these policies are economic duds.

Writing for the New York Times, a German journalist poured cold water on Macron’s plan to give redistribution powers to the European Union.

It would be funny if it weren’t dangerous — the solution offered by the new, pro-Europe president, Emmanuel Macron, is to create a eurozone budget, with its own finance minister. …Mr. Macron’s proposal is a disaster in the making. It will only further alienate Europeans from one another and weaken the bloc economically. …Brussels’s money has often been Europe’s curse. The Greek government, for instance, knew it could take for granted the support of the other euro members for its unsustainable budget after Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany recklessly declared, “If the euro fails, Europe fails.” Athens slowed down on reform, knowing Brussels would bail it out, and northern Europeans grew angry. In the worst case, Mr. Macron’s plan could turn this disincentive into a characteristic feature of the European Union. …Brussels would end up holding the purse but not the purse strings.

So what’s the story with Macron’s schizophrenic approach? Why is he a pro-market Dr. Jekyll for French policy but a statist Mr. Hyde for European policy?

I don’t have the answer, but Diego Zuluaga wrote about this dichotomy for CapX.

The puzzle of Macronism is that it tends to advocate dynamism at home, but stasis abroad. The French President, both during his tenure in Hollande’s cabinet and in his new office, has championed reform of the country’s bewilderingly byzantine employment code, which has promoted social exclusion and led to a high rate of structural unemployment. …But Macron’s liberalism seemingly stops at France’s borders. On the EU level, he has called for increased risk-sharing among euro member states, a eurozone budget and finance minister… Whatever one makes of his climate-change activism, it is nothing if not dirigiste in the extreme, wishing to curb carbon emissions through bureaucratic pacts on a global level. What we are left with is the pro-market equivalent of Stalin’s pre-WWII economic policy of  “socialism in one country”. Liberalism in one country acknowledges the need for economic flexibility and a greater reliance on market forces at home. It champions tax reform and deregulation of industry and hiring. But it shuns those principles on the international level.

By the way, Mr. Zuluaga is using “liberalism” in the classic sense, meaning pro-market policies.

Let’s close with a couple of items that show France still has a long way to go.

First, a leftist columnist wants us to believe that recent riots, caused by a sale on Nutella, are symbolic of a dystopian future.

You may have seen the videos: in French supermarkets Intermarché, customers are rushing towards shelves of Nutella jars. They’re running, shouting, fighting, rummaging to grab a jar of the chocolate flavoured paste… This mess happened simultaneously in various French supermarkets when grocery chain Intermarché advertised a massive sale on 1kg Nutella jars, priced at €1,41 instead of the usual €4,50. …I don’t find this news funny, not even remotely. …it is telling of a France that is more and more divided… The massive response to this sale shines light…on the precarious position in which many French workers, and shoppers, find themselves. …And it’s not going to get any better for them. Macron’s looming labour reform is already eroding French workers’ rights… Macron’s great vision for France increasingly looks like a country where only the rich and “successful” will be able to afford Nutella – and those who “are nothing” will be left to fight for sale prices.

This type of over-wrought analysis makes me want to cheer for Macron.

Why? Because I understand that the best hope for workers is faster growth, not “labor-protection policies” that actually undermine job creation and cause wages to stagnate.

Second, we have a story that highlights the impossible regulatory burden in France.

A French boulanger has been ordered to pay a €3,000 fine for working too hard after he failed to close his shop for one day a week last summer. …Under local employment law, two separate regulations from 1994 and 2000 require bakers’ shops to close once a week… He has been advised the only way to get around the regulations would be to open a second boulangerie with different opening hours. …The federation of Aube boulangeries and patisseries questioned 126 members at the end of last year: the majority were in favour of maintaining the obligatory one-day closure. Eric Scherrer of the retail union CLIC-P, said French employment laws were there to protect workers and employers and had to be respected. …“These people need to have a rest day each week. We can’t just allow them to work non-stop. It’s absolutely necessary that both bosses and employees have a day of rest.”

The bottom line is that Macron should drop his statist European-wide proposals and put all of his focus on fixing France.

If you look at his country’s scores from Economic Freedom of the World, he should be working day and night to reduce the fiscal burden of government.

And lowering the regulatory burden should be the second-most important priority.

Emmanuel Macron may seem to be a

President Donald J. Trump, right, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, left. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald J. Trump, right, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, left. (Photo: Reuters)

At the risk of stating the obvious, I’m not a fan of international bureaucracies. The International Monetary Fund (IMF)and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (IECD) are the worst multilateral institutions because of their promotion of bad policy, but I’ve also gone after the United Nations and World Bank for their periodic efforts to advance statism.

But this doesn’t mean I’m reflexively against international organizations. My criticisms of the IMF, OECD, UN, and WB are solely a function of their work to empower governments at the expense of people.

And this is why I generally like the World Trade Organization. The WTO is a Geneva-based international bureaucracy, but its mission is to empower people at the expense of governments by reducing import taxes and other trade barriers.

Which explains why I think President Trump will be making a mistake if he imposes unilateral tariffs on China. Yes, there seems to be strong evidence that China’s government is misbehaving, but I think that a positive outcome is far more likely if the U.S. government takes the issue before the WTO. Which is what I said in this short interview with Neil Cavuto.

And I’m not alone.

Bloomberg editorialized recently about this issue.

President Donald Trump…is…addressing a legitimate trade dispute: China’s alleged theft of intellectual property and forced technology transfers. …the U.S. alleges — with reason — that China has been stealing U.S. trade secrets, forcing American companies to hand over proprietary technology as a condition of doing business on the mainland, and providing state support for Chinese firms to acquire critical technology abroad. …Yet unilateral blanket tariffs of the sort the administration is considering are the wrong answer. In the first instance, they’d hurt U.S. consumers and producers even if they didn’t provoke retaliation (which they probably would). They’d undermine the World Trade Organization’s dispute-resolution system, perhaps fatally.

And the editorial points out that the WTO is a better place to settle the dispute.

…one can question the WTO’s effectiveness in resolving disputes of this kind: The process moves slowly. On the other hand, it works. The U.S. has won the great majority of the cases it’s taken there. The complaint against China’s practices would be stronger if it was coordinated with other governments. Japan and the European Union share U.S. concerns and would be willing to cooperate. As recently as last month, this seemed to be the strategy. …the U.S. needs to take the lead, once more, in global economic statecraft. Champion the rules-based order that has served the country and the world so well. Strengthen the WTO, don’t subvert it.

And the Wall Street Journal opined today on this topic.

…there’s no denying that Beijing’s mercantilism has fueled the political backlash against free trade. China’s increasingly predatory behavior, especially intellectual-property theft, poses a particular problem to a sustainable trading system. The question is how to respond in a way that encourages better Chinese behavior without harming the global economy and American companies and workers. …the danger is a tariff tit-for-tat that harms everyone. …Beijing is more likely to respond in kind at such a broad public assault on its goods.

The WSJ notes that China’s behavior has left something to be desired.

Beijing has turned to mercantilism over the last decade. …The government gives subsidies in several forms, including loans from state-owned banks on easy terms and low interest rates. …Along with subsidies and government help in acquiring foreign companies, the policy explicitly requires foreign companies to transfer intellectual property in return for access to the Chinese market. …Beijing has also stepped up its use of regulations to discriminate against foreign companies. …All of these policies violate WTO agreements. …The China problem now is the predatory use of government power to punish foreign competitors to benefit Chinese companies.

The WSJ doesn’t necessarily think the WTO is the right vehicle to respond, but it definitely supports a plurilateral approach.

…remedies should be based on the principle of reciprocity. If Beijing pressures multinational car companies to build electric cars in China, the U.S., EU and Japan could impose a tariff on Chinese-made vehicles and restrict the transfer of related technology. This would avoid the Trump Administration’s approach of tariffs on a wide variety of goods, a policy that alienates allies and raises the risk of a wider trade war. A targeted approach…could even strengthen the WTO as China would have an interest in modernizing and using the organization’s courts to resolve the disputes.

I’m a fiscal wonk rather than a trade wonk, so I’m open to the notion that perhaps a plurilateral approach is better than the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanism.

Though it’s worth noting that the United States has a very high batting averagewhen bringing cases to the WTO.

Dan Ikenson, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, reviewed WTO trade disputes involving the U.S. from 1995 to March of this year. He found that the U.S. prevailed in 91 percent of cases that it brought against other countries. “When the United States has been a complainant (as it has in 114 of 522 WTO disputes over 22 years — more than any other WTO member) it has prevailed on 91 percent of adjudicated issues,” he wrote.

I’ll close by noting that China’s bad policies don’t make it an enemy. The European Union is a semi-protectionist bloc and it isn’t our enemy either.

My goal is to simply point out that China’s approach to trade can be improved and should be improved. And since the country has moved in the right direction on overall economic policy (with very positive effects for the Chinese people), my hope is that coordinated opposition to Chinese mercantilism will have a positive effect.

CATO economist Dan Mitchell makes the case

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial