One Story Two Different Views

Read both articles and share your thoughts. What parts of the articles do you agree or disagree with? What were the strongest points/arguments made in both articles?

How Much Damage Will Trump’s Trade War Do?

Trump is winning the trade war because China has more to lose

The Atalantic The Hill

Will Donald Trump’s trade war tip the economy into a recession?

It seems a reasonable question to ask. The White House has initiated a rapidly escalating global tit for tat, with thousands of products from the United States, China, Canada, Mexico, and Europe now affected or threatened by tariffs. The price of imported goods is increasing. The demand for exported goods is falling. American businesses are laying workers off, and some are warning that they might end up bankrupt.

In some sense, Trump could not have picked a better time to engage the country in a pointless, destructive round of mercantilism: The country’s pace of growth is so strong that the tariffs should have only a muted effect on headline GDP and jobs numbers, economists think. Still, certain industries and certain places stand to suffer considerably—and this growth-chilling trade war might be hard to call off in the event that the economy were to slow down.

The war is being fought on multiple fronts, and with several different justifications. Trump has taken aim at China for engaging in a variety of unfair market practices, including stealing American intellectual property. He has decried the North American Free Trade Agreement, shared with Mexico and Canada, arguing that it rips off American businesses. And he has said that the European Union’s trade practices are unfair, too. “They put up barriers so that we can’t sell our farm products,” Trump said at a Minnesota rally last month. “Yet they sell Mercedes and BMW, and the cars come in by the millions. And we hardly tax them at all.”

With the idea of aiding American businesses and punishing overseas trading partners, the White House has threatened or slapped tariffs on more than $200 billion of imported goods, leading to retaliation. Solar panels, jeans, motorcycles, pork, soybeans, steel, aluminum, cars, insect repellent, tilapia, lobsters, cranberries, cheese: The list of items caught in the crossfire is large and growing. That has forced more and more businesses to react. Some companies, like domestic commodity producers, have benefited from the tariffs. Others have said they would shift production overseas to avoid them, alter their supply chains to soften the impact, or start passing price increases onto consumers.

The effect on American growth stands to be small but noticeable, economists said. Paul Ashworth, the chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, said he estimated the hit at 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points of GDP. Morgan Stanley put the direct impact at 0.3 percentage points, with a variety of other forecasters and economic analysts coming up with similar numbers. “There is no question that the short-run impact of the tariffs is to weaken GDP,” said Chris Varvares of Macroeconomic Advisers by IHS Markit, a forecasting firm. That said, he added, “even sizable tariffs are not recession inducing” given the kind of growth the country is seeing right now.

But the trade war is more than just tariffs. Trump’s actions might reduce consumer confidence, undercut business investment, and reduce investors’ appetite for risk. Companies anticipating more tariffs and export barriers, for instance, might choose not to expand their operations in the United States. “Since workers and firms don’t know if they might be impacted by retaliatory tariffs, including losing your job or shutting down your firm, the U.S. imposing tariffs is the economic equivalent of a game of Russian roulette,” Varvares said, adding that the economic impact of such decision making was far harder to model and measure.

Plus, there is the risk that the trade war could continue to escalate, doing far more damage to global growth. Economists at UBS have estimated that a leveled-up dispute might slow global growth down by a percentage point—including as much as 2.5 percentage points in the United States and 2.3 percentage points in China. In that scenario, there would be “severe” implications for the stock market, which could fall as much as 21 percent in the United States.

Even if the overall GDP effect remains muted—just a few tenths of a percentage point—some communities and consumers stand to feel it much harder than others. Agricultural businesses, for instance, are bracing for tariffs. “For soybean producers like me this is a direct financial hit,” Brent Bible, a soy and corn farmer based in Indiana, said in a statement. “This is money out of my pocket. These tariffs could mean the difference between a profit and a loss for an entire year’s worth of work out in the field, and that’s only in the near term.” The auto industry is also warning that Trump’s threatened tariffs might cost thousands of production jobs—losses that would be concentrated in Rust Belt states such as Michigan, among others.

The hit to consumers paying higher prices—estimated at something between 50 and a few hundred dollars a year—will be more diffuse. But lower-income consumers, who tend to buy more goods from countries such as China, might end up feeling squeezed more than their higher-income counterparts. “We know that China is producing goods that are lower quality,” said Mary Lovely, an economist at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. “Take any consumer product. Snowboards. A tennis racket. Luggage. Rich people buy stuff from Switzerland. They don’t go to Target to buy a tennis racket from China.”

Were the economy to slow, the sting from higher prices, layoffs, reduced business investment, and falling exports would be much bigger, of course. As Varvares said, “If the economy were already in the process of growth slowing toward trend or slightly below”—as expected, given rising interest rates, among other factors—“any additional negative shock could tip the economy over into recession.” There’s no need to worry about a trade-triggered recession today, then. But it might be worth worrying about one tomorrow.


 

 Don’t look now, but there are numerous signs that President Trump is winning the trade war with China. While the battle over tariffs and protecting intellectual property may eventually damage the United States’ economy, there are signs that China is already paying a price for its refusal to bend to Trump’s demands.

One indicator of that price is the sharp plunge in China’s stock exchanges. Since the White House announced the first tariffs — on washing machines and solar cells on Jan. 22 — the Shanghai Index of Chinese stocks is down nearly 20 percent, while the S&P 500 is off less than 1 percent.

That decline of share values is occurring in spite of the first-time inclusion in the MSCI, an important international index, of many Chinese stocks on June 1. That initial index listing attracted billions of dollars toward Chinese stocks, in expectation it would boost prices, but it did not.

What does that tell you? Investors think China has more to lose than the U.S. They are correct.

China’s government, determined to save face and match Trump’s tariff threats, is so concerned about the slide in share prices and what it might signal about the cost of the confrontation, that it will likely allow the $941 billion China Investment Corp. (CIC) to begin buying domestic stocks.

The sovereign wealth fund has petitioned to change its mandate, which formerly directed it to purchases of overseas shares; since most view the CIC as an arm of the Chinese government, the move may be interpreted as Beijing again intervening to prop up share prices.

It would not be the first time. From the middle of 2014 through the second quarter of 2015, Beijing encouraged China’s citizens to buy stocks, ballyhooing a booming economy and hinting that the government would stand behind markets.

Stocks soared as 38 million new accounts were opened, mainly by small investors. When share prices plunged in June 2015, officials stepped in to stabilize markets; the government intervened again later that year, loosening margin requirements, putting a “lockup” in place that prevented owners of large positions from dumping their positions while also banning short selling.

Most recently, the government reportedly stepped in this past March, hoping to stem a sharp selloff in share prices caused by fears of a trade war.

Another indication that Beijing is feeling the heat is that officials appear to be softening their bold “Made in China 2025” campaign. The Financial Times reported, “A propaganda directive leaked in late June ordered Chinese media no longer to refer to the term;”

The FT also noted: “Chinese leaders are also seeking to reassure foreign governments and companies that the programme is more benign than has been portrayed.”

Beijing is attempting to ally with the EU to push back against Trump’s trade stance; being less aggressive about dominating coveted industries is meant to help that effort.

Meanwhile, it’s not just Chinese stocks that have been walloped by trade concerns; the yuan has taken a beating, too. Since the end of March, when the battle over tariffs heated up, the yuan has slid nearly 7 percent, again demonstrating the impact the trade war might have on China’s economy.

After it hit a six-month low at the end of June, the government quietly stepped in to halt the slide, working through a large state-owned bank to sell dollars and prop up the yuan. Part of the currency’s weakness was attributed to a decision by China’s central bank to free up $100 billion in an attempt to boost lending and help out small businesses and state-owned firms threatened by escalating tariffs.

Meanwhile, growth in China is cooling. In the second quarter, the economy grew at 6.7 percent, the slowest rate since 2016. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected that China will grow 6.6 percent for the current year, but only 6.4 percent next year; in 2017 growth totaled 6.9 percent.

In describing the potential harm that might be done by Trump’s tariffs, the IMF economic guru Maury Obstfeld said recently: “As the focus of global retaliation, the United States finds a relatively high share of its exports taxed in global markets in such a broader trade conflict, and it is therefore especially vulnerable.”

Given that exports constitute 12 percent of the U.S. economy, versus 20 percent of China’s GDP and that the entire skirmish is over disparate tariffs (i.e., ours are higher) that seems more a political message than a reasonable assessment.

New numbers tell the story. China’s industrial production increased 6 percent year-over-year in June, short of an estimated 6.5 percent, while investment also was up only 6 percent.

By contrast, in the U.S., economic growth remains on the upswing, along with investment spending by businesses and industrial output. A recent NABE survey indicates that business economists are concerned about the effect of a trade war, but also bullish about the outlook for growth.

Specifically, they have substantially raised their expectations of industrial production, now looking for a gain of 3.8 percent this year, up from the 3.3-percent gain projected in March, and much higher than the 2.3 percent forecasted in the December survey.

Meanwhile, economists at ISI Evercore are reporting their private surveys of businesses support estimates that real GDP could grow at a nominal rate (including inflation) of 5.5 percent in the second quarter, a cyclical high.

The recent rise in retail sales, up 6.6 percent in June compared to last year, fuels continued optimism, as does data from the latest Empire State Manufacturing Survey, “suggesting a continuation of robust growth,” according to the press release.

President Trump is rightly pushing back against decades of Chinese misbehavior, punishing Beijing for ongoing unfair trade practices and theft of intellectual property. His imposition of tariffs are meant to force a change by damaging China’s economy.

The risk is that China stands firm and fails to make the concessions demanded by the White House. In that scenario, global growth will suffer, but Beijing will likely suffer most. It appears they already are.

Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. For 15 years, she has been a columnist for The Fiscal Times, Fox News, the New York Sun and numerous other organizations.

Source: US Government Class

About Author

Connect with Me: