Tag: negative-sum game

Posted on

‘Tariff is the most beautiful word.’ Not for economists!

In an interview with Joe Rogan for his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, just before the US election, Donald Trump stated that, “To me, the most beautiful word – and I’ve said this for the last couple of weeks – in the dictionary today and any is the word ‘tariff’. It’s more beautiful than love; it’s more beautiful than anything. It’s the most beautiful word. This country can become rich with the use, the proper use of tariffs.”

President-elect Trump has stated that he will impose tariffs on imports of 10% or 20%, with 60% and 100% tariffs on imports from China and Mexico, respectively. This protection for US industries, combined with lighter regulation, will, he claims, provide a stimulus to the economy and help create jobs. The revenues will also help to reduce America’s budget deficit.

But it is not that straightforward.

Problems with tariffs for the USA

Imposing tariffs is likely to reduce international trade. But international trade brings net benefits, which are distributed between the participants according to the terms of trade. This is the law of comparative advantage.

In the simple two-country case, the law states that, provided the opportunity costs of producing various goods differ between the two countries, both of them can gain from mutual trade if they specialise in producing (and exporting) those goods that have relatively low opportunity costs compared with the other country. The total production and consumption of the two countries will be higher.

So if the USA has a comparative advantage in various manufactured products and a trading partner has a comparative advantage in tropical food products, such as coffee or bananas, both can gain by specialisation and trade.

If tariffs are imposed and trade is thereby reduced between the USA and its trading partners, there will be a net loss, as production will switch from lower-cost production to higher-cost production. The higher costs of less efficient production in the USA will lead to higher prices for those goods than if they were imported.

At the same time, goods that are still imported will be more expensive as the price will include the tariff. Some of this may be borne by the importer, meaning that only part of the tariff is passed on to the consumer. The incidence of the tariff between consumer and importer will depend on price elasticities of demand and supply. Nevertheless, imports will still be more expensive, allowing the domestically-produced substitutes to rise in price too, albeit probably by not so much. According to work by Kimberly Clausing and Mary E Lovely for the Peterson Institute (see link in Articles below), Trump’s proposals to raise tariffs would cost the typical American household over $2600 a year.

The net effect will be a rise in inflation – at least temporarily. Yet one of Donald Trump’s pledges is to reduce inflation. Higher inflation will, in turn, encourage the Fed to raise interest rates, which will dampen investment and economic growth.

Donald Trump tends to behave transactionally rather than ideologically. He is probably hoping that a rapid introduction of tariffs will then give the USA a strong bargaining position with foreign countries to trade more fairly. He is also hoping that protecting US industries by the use of tariffs, especially when coupled with deregulation, will encourage greater investment and thereby faster growth.

Much will depend on how other countries respond. If they respond by raising tariffs on US exports, any gain to industries from protection from imports will be offset by a loss to exporters.

A trade war, with higher tariffs, will lead to a net loss in global GDP. It is a negative sum game. In such a ‘game’, it is possible for one ‘player’ (country) to gain, but the loss to the other players (countries) will be greater than that gain.

Donald Trump is hoping that by ‘winning’ such a game, the USA could still come out better off. But the gain from higher investment, output and employment in the protected industries would have to outweigh the losses to exporting industries and from higher import prices.

The first Trump administration (2017–21), as part of its ‘America First’ programme, imposed large-scale tariffs on Chinese imports and on steel and aluminium from across the world. There was wide-scale retaliation by other countries with tariffs imposed on a range of US exports. There was a net loss to world income, including US GDP.

Problems with US tariffs for the rest of the world

The imposition of tariffs by the USA will have considerable effects on other countries. The higher the tariffs and the more that countries rely on exports to the USA, the bigger will the effect be. China and Mexico are likely to be the biggest losers as they face the highest tariffs and the USA is a major customer. In 2023, US imports from China were worth $427bn, while US exports to China were worth just $148bn – only 34.6% of the value of imports. The percentage is estimated to be even lower for 2024 at around 32%. In 2023, China’s exports to the USA accounted for 12.6% of its total exports; Mexico’s exports to the USA accounted for 82.7% of its total exports.

It is possible that higher tariffs could be extended beyond China to other Asian countries, such as Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Indonesia. These countries typically run trade surpluses with the USA. Also, many of the products from these countries include Chinese components.

As far as the UK is concerned, the proposed tariffs would cause significant falls in trade. According to research by Nicolò Tamberi at the University of Sussex (see link below in Articles):

The UK’s exports to the world could fall by £22 billion (–2.6%) and imports by £1.4 (–0.16%), with significant variations across sectors. Some sectors, like fishing and petroleum, are particularly hard-hit due to their high sensitivity to tariff changes, while others, such as textiles, benefit from trade diversion as the US shifts demand away from China.

Other badly affected sectors would include mining, pharmaceuticals, finance and insurance, and business services. The overall effect, according to the research, would be to reduce UK output by just under 1%.

Countries are likely to respond to US tariffs by imposing their own tariffs on US imports. World Trade Organization rules permit the use of retaliatory tariffs equivalent to those imposed by the USA. The more aggressive the resulting trade war, the bigger would be the fall in world trade and GDP.

The EU is planning to negotiate with Trump to avoid a trade war, but officials are preparing the details of retaliatory measures should the future Trump administration impose the threatened tariffs. The EU response is likely to be strong.

Articles

Questions

  1. Explain why, according to the law of comparative advantage, all countries can gain from trade.
  2. In what ways may the imposition of tariffs benefit particular sections of an economy?
  3. Is it in countries’ interests to retaliate if the USA imposes tariffs on their exports to the USA?
  4. Why is a trade war a ‘negative sum game’?
  5. Should the UK align with the EU in resisting President-elect Trump’s trade policy or should it seek independently to make a free-trade deal with the USA? is it possible to do both?
  6. What should China do in response to US threats to impose tariffs of 60% or more on Chinese imports to the USA?
Posted on

Worries about the Chinese economy

According to the IMF, Chinese GDP grew by 5.2% in 2023 and is predicted to grow by 4.6% this year. Such growth rates would be extremely welcome to most developed countries. UK growth in 2023 was a mere 0.5% and is forecast to be only 0.6% in 2024. Advanced economies as a whole only grew by 1.6% in 2023 and are forecast to grow by only 1.5% this year. Also, with the exception of India, the Philippines and Indonesia, which grew by 6.7%, 5.3% and 5.0% respectively in 2023 and are forecast to grow by 6.5%, 6.0% and 5.0% this year, Chinese growth also compares very favourably with other developing countries, which as a weighted average grew by 4.1% last year and are forecast to grow at the same rate this year.

But in the past, Chinese growth was much higher and was a major driver of global growth. Over the period 1980 to 2018, Chinese economic growth averaged 9.5% – more than twice the average rate of developing countries (4.5%) and nearly four times the average rate of advanced countries (2.4%) (see chart – click here for a PowerPoint of the chart).

Not only is Chinese growth now much lower, but it is set to decline further. The IMF forecasts that in 2025, Chinese growth will have fallen to 4.1% – below the forecast developing-country average of 4.2% and well below that of India (6.5%).

Causes of slowing Chinese growth

There are a number of factors that have come together to contribute to falling economic growth rates – growth rates that otherwise would have been expected to be considerably higher as the Chinese economy reopened after severe Covid lockdowns.

Property market
China has experienced a property boom over the past 20 years years as the government has encouraged construction in residential blocks and in factories and offices. The sector has accounted for some 20% of economic activity. But for many years, demand outstripped supply as consumers chose to invest in property, partly because of a lack of attractive alternatives for their considerable savings and partly because property prices were expected to go on rising. This lead to speculation on the part of both buyers and property developers. Consumers rushed to buy property before prices rose further and property developers borrowed considerably to buy land, which local authorities encouraged, as it provided a valuable source of revenue.

But now there is considerable overcapacity in the sector and new building has declined over the past three years. According to the IMF:

Housing starts have fallen by more than 60 per cent relative to pre-pandemic levels, a historically rapid pace only seen in the largest housing busts in cross-country experience in the last three decades. Sales have fallen amid homebuyer concerns that developers lack sufficient financing to complete projects and that prices will decline in the future.

As a result, many property developers have become unviable. At the end of January, the Chinese property giant, Evergrande, was ordered to liquidate by a Hong Kong court, after the judge ruled that the company did not have a workable plan to restructure around $300bn of debt. Over 50 Chinese property developers have defaulted or missed payments since 2020. The liquidation of Evergrande and worries about the viability of other Chinese property developers is likely to send shockwaves around the Chinese property market and more widely around Chinese investment markets.

Overcapacity
Rapid investment over many years has led to a large rise in industrial capacity. This has outstripped demand. The problem could get worse as investment, including state investment, is diverted from the property sector to manufacturing, especially electric vehicles. But with domestic demand dampened, this could lead to increased dumping on international markets – something that could spark trade wars with the USA and other trading partners (see below). Worries about this in China are increasing as the possibility of a second Trump presidency looks more possible. The Chinese authorities are keen to expand aggregate demand to tackle this overcapacity.

Uncertainty
Consumer and investor confidence are low. This is leading to severe deflationary pressures. If consumers face a decline in the value of their property, this wealth effect could further constrain their spending. This will, in turn, dampen industrial investment.

Uncertainty is beginning to affect foreign companies based in China. Many foreign companies are now making a loss in China or are at best breaking even. This could lead to disinvestment and add to deflationary pressures.

The Chinese stock market and policy responses
Lack of confidence in the Chinese economy is reflected in falling share prices. The Shanghai SSE Composite Index (an index of all stocks traded on the Shanghai Stock Exchange) has fallen dramatically in recent months. From a high of 3703 in September 2021, it had fallen to 2702 on 5 Feb 2024 – a fall of 27%. It is now below the level at the beginning of 2010 (see chart: click here for a PowerPoint). On 5 February alone, some 1800 stocks fell by over 10% in Shanghai and Shenzhen. People were sensing a rout and investors expressed their frustration and anger on social media, including the social media account of the US Embassy. The next day, the authorities intervened and bought large quantities of key stocks. China’s sovereign wealth fund announced that it would increase its purchase of shares to support the country’s stock markets. The SSE Composite rose 4.1% on 6 February and the Shenzhen Component Index rose 6.2%.

However, the rally eased as investors waited to see what more fundamental measures the authorities would take to support the stock markets and the economy more generally. Policies are needed to boost the wider economy and encourage a growth in consumer and business confidence.

Interest rates have been cut four times since the beginning of 2022, when the prime loan rate was cut from 3.85% to 3.7%. The last cut was from 3.55% to 3.45% in August 2023. But this has been insufficient to provide the necessary boost to aggregate demand. Further cuts in interest rates are possible and the government has said that it will use proactive fiscal and effective monetary policy in response to the languishing economy. However, government debt is already high, which limits the room for expansionary fiscal policy, and consumers are highly risk averse and have a high propensity to save.

Graduate unemployment
China has seen investment in education as an important means of increasing human capital and growth. But with a slowing economy, there are are more young people graduating each year than there are graduate jobs available. Official data show that for the group aged 16–24, the unemployment rate was 14.9% in December. This compares with an overall urban unemployment rate of 5.1%. Many graduates are forced to take non-graduate jobs and graduate jobs are being offered at reduced salaries. This will have a further dampening effect on aggregate demand.

Demographics
China’s one-child policy, which it pursued from 1980 to 2016, plus improved health and social care leading to greater longevity, has led to an ageing population and a shrinking workforce. This is despite recent increases in unemployment in the 16–24 age group. The greater the ratio of dependants to workers, the greater the brake on growth as taxes and savings are increasingly used to provide various forms of support.

Effects on the rest of the world

China has been a major driver of world economic growth. With a slowing Chinese economy, this will provide less stimulus to growth in other countries. Many multinational companies, including chip makers, cosmetics companies and chemical companies, earn considerable revenue from China. For example, the USA exports over $190 billion of goods and services to China and these support over 1 million jobs in the USA. A slowdown in China will have repercussions for many companies around the world.

There is also the concern that Chinese manufacturers may dump products on world markets at less than average (total) cost to shift stock and keep production up. This could undermine industry in many countries and could initiate a protectionist response. Already Donald Trump is talking about imposing a 10% tariff on most imported goods if he is elected again in November. Such tariffs could be considerably higher on imports from China. If Joe Biden is re-elected, he too may impose tariffs on Chinese goods if they are thought to be unfairly subsidised. US (and possibly EU) tariffs on Chinese goods could lead to a similar response from China, resulting in a trade war – a negative sum game.

Videos

Articles

Questions

  1. Why is China experiencing slowing growth and is growth likely to pick up over the next five years?
  2. How does the situation in China today compare with that in Japan 30 years ago?
  3. What policies could the Chinese government pursue to stimulate economic growth?
  4. What policies were enacted towards China during the Trump presidency from 2017 to 2020?
  5. Would you advise the Chinese central bank to cut interest rates further? Explain.
  6. Should China introduce generous child support for families, no matter the number of children?
Posted on

Truce between Boeing and Airbus


Boeing and Airbus have called a truce in their 17-year battle over subsidies. During this period, both have accused each other of unfair government subsidies to their respective plane makers.

The long-running trade dispute

In October 2004, the USA requested the establishment of a WTO panel to consider whether Airbus was providing unfair subsidies to develop its new super-jumbo – the A380. This provoked a counter-request by Airbus, claiming unfair subsidies of $27.3 billion for Boeing by the US government since 1992. In July 2005, two panels were set up to deal with the two sets of allegations.

In June 2010, the WTO panel circulated its findings on Boeing’s case against Airbus. It found Airbus guilty of using some illegal subsidies to win contracts through predatory pricing, but dismissed several of Boeing’s claims because many of the subsidies were reimbursable at commercial rates of interest. However, some of the ‘launch aid’ for research and development was given at below market rates and so violated WTO rules. The report evoked appeal and counter-appeal from both sides, but the WTO’s Appellate Body reported in May 2011 upholding the case that ‘certain subsidies’ provided by the EU and member states were incompatible with WTO rules. In June 2011, the EU accepted the findings.

In March 2011, the WTO panel circulated its findings on Airbus’s case against Boeing. The EU claimed that ten specific measures amounted to subsidies to Boeing, which were inconsistent with the WTO’s rules on subsidies (the SCM agreement). It upheld three of ten alleged breaches, including subsidies between 1989 and 2006 of at least $5.3 billion. These subsidies were adjudged to have resulted in adverse effects to the EU’s interests, specifically in lost sales, especially to third-country markets, and in significantly suppressing the price at which Airbus was able to sell its aircraft.

But these rulings were not the end of the matter. Various appeals and counter-appeals were lodged by both sides with varying degrees of success. Also the disputes extended to other wide-bodied jets and to narrow-bodied ones too with claims by both sides of unfair subsidies and tax breaks.

On 9 June 2017 the WTO’s compliance panel rejected several EU claims that the USA had failed to withdraw all illegal subsidies to Boeing. However, it also found that the USA had not complied with an earlier ruling to abolish illegal tax breaks. Both sides claimed victory. Airbus claimed that the ruling had seen the WTO condemn non-compliance and new subsidies. In particular, it focused on the WTO ruling that Washington State subsidies had resulted in a significant loss of sales for Airbus. On the other hand, a Boeing press release spoke of a US win in a major WTO compliance ruling. Boeing claimed that that ruling meant that the United States had complied with ‘virtually all’ of the WTO’s decisions in the counter-case that the EU had filed against the USA in 2006.

On 27 June 2017, as expected, the EU challenged the WTO decision. This meant that the EU’s case would go back to the WTO’s appellate body, which was still considering a separate US case over state aid to Airbus.

On 15 May 2018, the WTO ruled that Airbus did not use unfair subsidies for narrow-bodied jets, such as the A320, which competes with the 737, but did for wide-bodied jets. The EU said that it would comply with the WTO ruling over the support for wide-bodied jets.

In 2019, the WTO ruled that the EU had illegally provided support to Airbus. The USA responded with tariffs of up to $7.5bn on a range of goods imported from the EU. In a parallel case, the WTO ruled that the US benefits to Boeing also violated trade rules, authorising the EU to impose tariffs on US imports worth roughly $4bn. Then in March 2020, the USA imposed a 15% tariff on Airbus aircraft.

The truce

Agreement was reached on 15 June 2021 in trade talks between the USA and the EU in Brussels. Both sides recognised that the dispute had been a negative-sum game, with both sides losing. It was thus agreed to suspend for five years all tariffs on aircraft and on a range of other goods, such as EU cheese and wine and US tobacco and spirits. The agreement did not include ending EU tariffs on US steel, however.

It was also agreed to work on an overarching agreement on subsidies, which would allow fair support by governments on both sides, and to co-operate in finding ways to counter unfair state investment in aircraft by China. US Trade Representative Katherine Tai said that the agreement ‘includes a commitment for concrete joint collaboration to confront the threat from China’s ambitions to build an aircraft sector on non-market practices’. China’s state-sponsored aerospace manufacturer, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, or Comac, sees its C919, now in late stages of development, as a direct rival to the Airbus A320neo and the Boeing 737 Max.

To work out the details of US-EU collaboration, a working group will be set up. It will consider ways of ensuring that finance is provided on market terms, that R&D funding is transparent and that support given to aircraft manufactures will be equivalent by each side and will avoid harming the other side. It will consider just how the two sides can co-operate to address unfair competition from elsewhere.

Two days later, an almost identically worded deal was reached between the USA and the UK to end tariffs on a range of goods and join the EU-USA co-operation on aircraft manufacture.

Articles

Questions

  1. Choose any one particular complaint to the WTO by either Boeing or Airbus and assess the arguments used by the WTO in its ruling.
  2. Are subsidies by aircraft manufacturers in the interests of (a) passengers; (b) society in general?
  3. Is collaboration between Boeing and Airbus in the interests of (a) passengers; (b) society in general?
  4. How is game theory relevant to the long-running disputes between Boeing and Airbus and to their relationships in the coming years?
  5. Would cheaper aircraft from China be in the interests of (a) passengers; (b) society in general?
  6. Explain what is meant by ‘strategic trade theory’. How is it relevant to aircraft manufacture?