Not to get him in trouble with his boss, but U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has been sounding like a free trader lately. I’m beginning to think Ambassador Kirk consumes the analyses we produce over here at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. Well, let me rephrase: that he consumes the meat of our analyses, but still hides the vegetables under the picked-over potatoes.

Still, that’s pretty commendable for a Washington policymaker.

Just the other day, Ambassador Kirk lamented how policymakers do a poor job selling trade agreements to a skeptical public. Inside U.S. Trade [$] paraphrased Kirk as saying:

[P]oliticians must ‘talk about trade differently’ and demonstrate how trade policy is directly responsible for sustaining economic growth and creating jobs. If the focus is only on how trade deals will improve supply chains for businesses, for instance, that is not enough to build the base for support for trade deals.

That is a sound criticism. The typical, mercantilist arguments that tout the benefits of exports and rationalize imports as necessary evils are foolish and self-defeating—particularly in a country that will run trade deficits into the distant future as its economy continues to grow and attract greater amounts of foreign investment. The freedom to engage in commerce with whom and how one chooses, and the impact of import competition are the real benefits of freer trade.

Like some others in town, we at Cato advocate free trade. But unlike most, we advocate free trade here in the United States—not just over there in foreign countries. Free trade requires more than getting other governments to eliminate their barriers to U.S. exports; it requires getting the U.S. government to eliminate its barriers to U.S. imports from abroad. The latter is the real objective of free trade advocacy and the well-spring of most of its benefits.

But the economic benefits of imports rarely make the Washington “free trade advocate’s” Top-10 list of talking points, nor do they officially register in the minds of trade negotiators, whose chief aims are to secure for their exporters the greatest possible access to foreign markets, while simultaneously conceding to foreigners as little access as possible to the domestic market. “Import” is a four-letter word in the Washington trade policy community.

That’s why Ambassador Kirk’s recent comments have me thinking: epiphany?

In a statement responding to the WTO Appellate Body ruling last week that China’s export restrictions on nine raw materials were not in conformity with that country’s WTO commitments, Ambassador Kirk made the point that U.S. firms that use those raw materials will be better able to compete once those restrictions are lifted.

Today’s decision ensures that core manufacturing industries in this country can get the materials they need to produce and compete on a level playing field.

The USTR had previously made the following point:

These raw material inputs are used to make many processed products in a number of primary manufacturing industries, including steel, aluminum and various chemical industries. These products, in turn become essential components in even more numerous downstream products.

Technically, Ambassador Kirk is not engaging in profanity—he doesn’t use the word import. But his argument against Chinese export restrictions is just as applicable to U.S. import restrictions. Removing restrictions—whether the export variety imposed by foreign governments or the import variety imposed by our own—reduces input prices, lowers domestic production costs, enables more competitive final-goods pricing and, thus, greater profits for U.S.-based producers.

So let’s take Ambassador Kirk’s sound logic and see if it might apply elsewhere in the realm of U.S. trade policy. If the U.S. government thought it worthwhile to take China to the WTO over the restrictions it imposes on raw material exports because those restrictions hurt U.S. producers, then why does the same U.S. government impose its own restrictions on imports of some of the very same raw materials? That’s right. The United States maintains antidumping duties on magnesium, silicon metal, and coke (all raw materials subject to Chinese export restrictions).

If Ambassador Kirk ate the vegetables as well as the meat of Cato’s trade policy analyses, he would recognize that his logic provides a compelling case for antidumping reforms, such as one requiring the administering authorities to consider the economic impact of antidumping measures on producers in downstream industries, such as magnesium-cast automobile parts producers, manufacturers of silicones used in solar panels, and even steel producers, who require coke for their blast furnaces.

We will know that the ambassador has eaten his free-trade vegetables when he starts sounding like former USTR Robert Zoellick who once hoped for the Doha Round of trade negotiations that it would “[T]urn every corner store in America into a duty-free shop.”

Is the U.S. Trade Representative a Closet Free Trader? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Newt Gingrich defeated communism, someone hacked Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account, and President Obama saved the U.S. automobile industry.  Grandiosity, denial, and revisionism are all noted indulgences of the political breed.  That’s why we should always be skeptical of their words and pity the partisan lemmings who mindlessly parrot their rhetoric.

In his SOTU speech last night, the president claimed credit for rescuing the auto industry:

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

This is a claim that is likely to be repeated as the president campaigns across the country this year, so it may be worthwhile to examine its merits.  (Who knows, maybe an effective debate moderator or Sunday news show host might find his way to asking the right questions of the president or members of his administration.)

Closer analysis reveals that President Obama (enabled by President Bush’s complicity) bailed out specific stakeholders at two auto companies at great cost to U.S. taxpayers and at great expense to important U.S. institutions. 

The assertion – or implication – that he saved the auto industry is bogus. The auto industry was never on the verge of collapse.  GM and Chrysler were in deep trouble, but Ford, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Kia, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes Benz (to name some U.S. producers) were fine.  Yes, in 2008-2009 the economy was in recession and automobile demand had tanked.  The companies that had been the most profligate, the most reckless, and the least disciplined were exposed, but talk of industry collapse was the product of a Detroit public relations campaign that featured the claim that 2 to 3 million jobs could be lost if the government didn’t funnel huge sums of cash to the Big Three. (Details here.)

I have shouted from the rooftops about this issue for over three years.  So rather than present all the facts and reconstruct all the arguments, let me economize with reference to this congressional testimony, given seven month ago. It pretty well sums up everything that’s wrong or misleading about the president’s narrative.

As I wrote last year:

The objection to the auto bailout was not that the federal government wouldn’t be able to marshal adequate resources to help GM. The most serious concerns were about the consequences of that intervention — the undermining of the rule of law, the property confiscations, the politically driven decisions and the distortion of market signals.

Any verdict on the auto bailouts must take into account, among other things, the illegal diversion of TARP funds, the forced transfer of assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners and their union; the higher-risk premiums consequently built into U.S. corporate debt; the costs of denying Ford and the other more worthy automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the autoworkers’ union, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about policy that pervades the business environment to this day.

GM’s recent profits speak only to the fact that politicians committed more than $50 billion to the task of rescuing those companies and the United Auto Workers. With debts expunged, cash infused, inefficiencies severed, ownership reconstituted, sales rebates underwritten and political obstacles steamrolled — all in the midst of a recovery in U.S. auto demand — only the most incompetent operations could fail to make profits.

But taxpayers are still short at least $10 billion to $20 billion (depending on the price that the government’s 500 million shares of GM will fetch), and there is still significant overcapacity in the auto industry.

The administration should divest as soon as possible, without regard to the stock price. Keeping the government’s tentacles around a large firm in an important industry will keep the door open wider to industrial policy and will deter market-driven decision-making throughout the industry, possibly keeping the brakes on the recovery. Yes, there will be a significant loss to taxpayers. But the right lesson to learn from this chapter in history is that government interventions carry real economic costs — only some of which are readily measurable.

The President’s Heroics and Other Tall Tales about the Auto Industry is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

When China joined the WTO in December 2001, one of the many terms it agreed to was to allow the United States to continue to treat it as a “non-market economy“ under U.S. antidumping law for a period of 15 years. China has regretted that concession ever since, and there are precious few gestures that would win more goodwill from the Chinese government than a decision by President Obama to graduate China to market economy status now.

A ruling last month from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit making it illegal to apply the U.S. Countervailing Duty Law (anti-subsidy law) to imports from non-market economies gives the president the perfect opening to make the change now. From the perspective of a free trader, that solution is far from ideal: it preserves domestic industries’ access to the antidumping law and countervailing duty laws, both of which produce egregiously punitive duties on imports and are ripe for serious reform or outright repeal.

But the benefit of granting market economy status to China now is that it will help slow, and likely reverse the deterioration in bilateral economic relations. And that would be an important benefit for all of us.

At the very beginning of the Obama administration, Scott Lincicome and I urged the new president to consider more than just the litany of gripes so often heard at home and to recognize that China has its own justifiable concerns about U.S. policy:

The time has come to seriously consider carrots and not just sticks—particularly since the pain from the sticks is not limited to its intended targets, but is felt in the United States and in other countries, given the transnational nature of supply chains. President Obama would invigorate the relationship if he were to grant China “market economy“ treatment in anti-dumping cases. While such a reform would take very little out of petitioning industries’ hides, the gesture would win vast sums of goodwill from the

Chinese—goodwill needed to resolve more important issues going forward. Indeed, repeal of the non-market economy (NME) designation presents a “win-win“ scenario for several reasons.

First, graduation from NME status is one of the Chinese government’s top international

trade priorities. China wants to be treated like all other major economies, and accordingly, the Chinese government is likely willing to make important concessions in other contested areas of trade policy to achieve market economy status. But the longer we wait to grant market economy status to China, the less valuable that concession becomes. Under the rules governing China’s accession to the WTO, the United States must repeal China’s NME designation by 2016. Thus, the value of that “concession“

will be greater in 2009—seven years early—than it will be in 2010 or 2012. Much beyond

2012, and the concession looks a bit like Confederate money.

Second, China’s NME designation has drawn intense criticism from domestic consuming industries, trade policy experts, and U.S. trade partners because of its incongruous application (for example, Russia was deemed a “market economy“ in 2002, yet still is not a WTO member, while China became a WTO member in 2001) and the latitude for abuse of administrative discretion it affords. Also, the relatively recent change in policy that opened the door to countervailing duty cases against China has sparked controversy about whether NME treatment in anti-dumping cases should still be permissible.

U.S. revocation of China’s NME status would alleviate many of those domestic concerns at virtually no cost to domestic petitioning industries, but petitioners value NME because of the trade-suppressing uncertainty the process engenders. It is important that President Obama understand that our trade relationship with China has been mutually beneficial, that the rhetoric about the impact of unfair Chinese practices has been highly exaggerated, and that unnecessary provocation could open a Pandora’s Box of economic problems.

(Read the whole analysis here.)

Well, Lincicome (in a thorough analysis) and I (in a fairly technical one) continue to make the case for market economy designation, and welcome the retorts of those who are opposed.

President Obama Could Improve Relations with China at the Stroke of His Pen is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Remember the story of that once-great nation that sacrificed its well-paying manufacturing jobs for low-wage, burger-flipping jobs at the altar of free trade? At one time, that story was a popular rejoinder of manufacturing unions and their apologists to the inconvenient facts that, despite manufacturing employment attrition, the economy was producing an average of 1.84 million net new jobs per year every year between 1983 and 2007, a quarter century during which the real value of U.S. trade increased five-fold and real GDP more than doubled.

The claim that service-sector jobs are uniformly inferior to manufacturing jobs lost credibility, as average wages in the two broad sectors converged in 2005 and have been consistently higher in services ever since. In 2011, the average service sector wage stood at $19.18 per hour, as compared to $18.94 in manufacturing. (But I don’t recall buying any $25-$30 hamburgers last year.)

One reason for U.S. manufacturing wages being higher than services wages in the past is that manufacturing labor unions “succeeded” at winning concessions from management that turned out to be unsustainable. The value of manufacturing labor didn’t justify its exorbitant costs, which encouraged producers to substitute other inputs for labor and to adopt more efficient techniques and technologies.

With the superiority-of-manufacturing-wages argument discredited, new arguments have emerged attempting to make the case that there is something special – even sacred – about the manufacturing sector that should afford it special policy consideration. Many of those arguments, however, conflate the meanings of manufacturing sector employment and manufacturing sector health or they rely on statistics that don’t support their arguments or they become irrelevant by losing sight of the fact that resources are scarce and must be used efficiently. And too often the prescriptions offered would place the economy on the slippery slope that descends into industrial policy.

I recently submitted this rebuttal to this essay by an environmental sciences professor by the name of Vaclav Smil, who commits those errors. (Judging from the tone of his mostly evasive response to my rebuttal, Smil doesn’t seem to have much tolerance for views that differ from his own.) Perhaps most noteworthy among Smil’s slew of questionable arguments is his claim that manufacturing companies, like Boeing, valued at $50 billion, are better for the economy than service companies like Facebook, which is also valued at $50 billion because

[i]n terms of job creation there is no comparison… Boeing employs some 160,000 people, whereas Facebook only employs 2,000.

Granted, Boeing’s operations support more jobs. But is that better for the economy than a company that provides the same value using 1/80th the amount of labor resources? Of course not. We need economic growth in the United States to create wealth and increase living standards. Economic growth and employment are not one and the same thing. In fact, the essence of growth is creating more value with fewer inputs (or at lower input cost). Creating jobs is easy. Instead of bulldozers, mandate shovels; instead of shovels, require spoons. Inefficient production techniques can create more jobs than efficient ones, but they don’t create value, which is the economic goal.

With 2,000 workers producing the same value as 160,000 – one producing the same value as 80 – Facebook is 80 times more productive than Boeing, freeing up 158,000 workers for other more productive endeavors (perhaps 79 more Facebook-type operations). If those companies were individual countries, the per capita GDP in Facebookland would be $25 million, but only $3.125 million in Boeingia. Where would you rather live?

Smil calls my assessment a cruel joke, presumably for its failure to empathize with unemployed and underemployed Americans, by considering value before job creation.  But policies designed to encourage more Boeing’s, as Smil supports (or, in fairness, any businesses that employ at least X number of people or meet this requirement or that) would likely retard the establishment of firms, like Facebook, that produce the goods and services that people want to consume. The provision of goods and services that people want to buy – rather than those that policymakers in Washington think people want to buy (or are happy to force them to buy) – is the essence of value creation.

Thus, policies should incentivize (or, at least not discourage) the kind of innovation and entrepreneurship needed to create more Facebooks? This kind of business formation occurs in environments where the rule of law is clear and abided; where there is greater certainty to the business and political climate; where the specter of asset expropriation is negligible; where physical and administrative infrastructure is in good shape; where the local work force is productive; where skilled foreigners aren’t chased back to their own shores; where there are limited physical, political, and administrative frictions; and so on. In other words, restraining the role of government to its proper functions and nothing more would create the environment most likely to produce more Facebooks in both the manufacturing and services sectors.

Does the U.S. Economy Need More Boeings or More Facebooks? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Earlier this year, the Cato Institute published this paper, which describes the self-flagellating nature of the U.S. antidumping law. Nearly 80 percent of all U.S. antidumping measures imposed between 2000 and 2009 (130 of 164 measures) restrict imports of intermediate goods—inputs required by U.S. producers for their own production processes.

Antidumping duties on magnesium, polyvinyl chloride, and hot-rolled steel, for example, enable petitioning U.S. companies that often dominate domestic supply of raw materials to foreclose alternative sources and then thrust higher prices on their U.S. customers. But those customers—U.S. producers of auto parts, paint, and appliances—who consume the now-restricted raw materials to produce higher value-added goods and who might otherwise create jobs, are instead made less profitable and less competitive, burdening the broader economy.

But here’s the kicker. The statute itself forbids the administering authorities from considering the economic impact of antidumping restrictions on those firms or on the economy at large. The well-being of the petitioning industry is all that matters and the collateral damage to downstream industries and the overall economy is to be ignored.

Now, the high-profile antidumping and countervailing duty cases recently initiated against solar panels from China are shining some fresh light on this outrage. A group called the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), which represents the portion of the U.S. solar industry that is downstream of the solar panel producers (the producers’ customers), is asking the cases be dropped or settled. CASE, representing 145 member companies that employ over 14,000 workers in solar project development, logistics, construction, and installation, argues:

The severe tariffs [being sought] would have a very damaging effect on the solar industry in the United States and would fundamentally undermine many years of effort by all of us who care about the future of solar power …

In simple dollar terms, [the] petition threatens the planned installation of solar electric power systems in the amount of $11 billion in 2012 and the potential installation of $60 billion currently in the total pipeline …

By asking government to interfere and artificially increase the price (equivalent to putting on a high tax) will only hinder the deployment, cost thousands of jobs … and further negatively impact an already shaky economy.

There is no good reason for arguments like these—and the facts supporting them—to be ignored in trade remedies cases. Several other major countries that have antidumping and countervailing duty laws on their books employ a so-called public interest provision that directs the authorities to deny duties when the likely costs are demonstrated to exceed any benefits to the petitioning industry. (See page 18 for an elaboration.)

It is difficult to fathom how an administration that begs U.S. businesses to invest and hire would not be pushing hard for this particular reform. After all, the administration acknowledges the importance of ensuring downstream producers have access to imported inputs. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has argued this point in its complaint against Chinese export restrictions at the World Trade Organization. And the president himself described how the competitiveness of U.S. firms is hurt by restrictions on imported inputs when he signed into law the Manufacturer’s Enhancement Act last year.

But then again, incongruities in this administration’s economic policies seem to be the rule, not the exception. In the solar panel case, the president has offered his rhetorical support (at least) to the petitioners, even though their success would drive up the cost of already-too-expensive solar power, reducing demand for an energy source the president has been advocating and subsidizing with the incentive of 30 percent tax credits.

I suppose the White House has determined that the cost of import duties—to consumers up front and to taxpayers through the a much higher tax credit—is worth the benefit of having a Chinese scapegoat to take the heat off the president for Solyndra’s failure.

Solar Panel Case Shines Light on the Imperative of U.S. Trade Law Reform is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Writing in today’s Washington Post, Charles Lane posits that the time is now for the U.S. Treasury to divest of its remaining 500 million shares of General Motors stock.  I agree with that conclusion, but not with Lane’s rationale or his recommendation for a heavy-handed, government-imposed exit strategy.

Just to recap: the Treasury recouped $23 billion of taxpayers’ $50 billion outlay when it sold GM shares to the public in an IPO in November 2010; the outstanding 500 million shares in government coffers must be sold at an average price of $54 to recover the remaining $27 billion; the IPO price was $33; today’s price is $21.69.  If all 500 million shares could be sold at today’s price, the Treasury would raise $10.8 billion, leaving taxpayers at a loss of just over $16 billion. (Of course, the sale of such a large number of shares would drive the average selling price way below today’s price, resulting in a much larger taxpayer loss.)

Lane is correct to conclude that GM’s immediate future isn’t looking quite so rosy. Demand is tanking in Europe. Concerns remain about whether GM will continue to be able to fund its $128 billion pension plan. And sales of the “game-changing” Chevy Volt have been lagging since the vehicle’s commercial introduction some 13 months ago—well before its engines demonstrated an annoying propensity to spontaneously combust. (Not to worry, says GM’s public relations team: the engines don’t seem to catch fire while being driven, only an hour or two after they’ve been parked in the garage.) Recognizing that that qualifier hasn’t been reassuring enough, GM is now offering to buy back any Chevy Volt it has ever sold, which doesn’t bode well for the bottom line, but also affirms how few of these Government Motors show pieces have even sold.

That grim analysis is the basis for Lane’s preference for government divestment now. There is more downside risk than upside potential. It is an argument based on market-timing, rather than on the principle that bad things happen when the government has a stake in the outcome of a race that it can influence. Sure, the administration would love to divest of GM at a profit to taxpayers. But the longer it is allowed to wait for that train to arrive, the greater the temptation to grease the skids.

The government should divest now. It should have divested in June, when it was first legally permissible to do so.  But the administration (following, by logic, what would have been Lane’s advice at the time) rolled the dice, expecting the stock value to rise. Instead it fell. And then there was this.

But my bigger problem is with Lane’s proposal for a managed divestment.  He writes:

It’s time to cut our losses.  Treasury should start selling its stake in GM.

And I know just the buyer: GM. The company is sitting on more than $33 billion in cash, about triple the market value of Treasury’s 500 million shares, which is roughly $10.8 billion.

Though GM wants to dedicate much of its cash to shoring up its pension plan, it could still absorb most or all of Treasury’s shares, even if Treasury charges a modest premium over the current market price, as it should.

Lane proposes this under the guise of some perverse fealty to a “free-enterprise economy,” as it would spare shareholders from the stock price-depressing impact of an unnatural 500 million share dump. But those shareholders knew the risks they were taking when they purchased GM stock in the first place. They certainly knew that the largest single shareholder didn’t intend to hold its position for very long. Lane’s argument for protecting those shareholders in the name of free-enterprise in unconvincing, if not misplaced.

Furthermore, Lane’s zeal for sticking it to GM seems to eclipse any real commitment to free markets. Forcing GM to divert resources from where management wants to commit them in order to achieve some favorable political outcome (a smaller taxpayer loss) is just as coercive as some of the administration’s actions on the road to GM’s nationalization in the first place.

GM should not be entitled to any favors or exceptional treatment by virtue of its ownership structure. To be certain of that, it should be 100 privatized yesterday. But likewise, GM should not be subject to compensatory or otherwise countervailing policies designed to punish or remove any perceived advantage. For starters, it is impossible to measure the benefits received or the penalties suffered with any precision. Demanding that GM not be exposed to special treatment goes in both directions.

Let’s Divest of GM Yesterday is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

If nothing else, the Washington Post is fairly consistent in its use of over-the-top headlines that promise so much more than the stories deliver.  I’ve commented on this excessive reliance on hyperbole before, but today’s web page headline (at around 2:00 pm) — U.S.to Counter China with Troops in Australia* — warrants a few words.

The thrust of the story is that the U.S. military will establish a “permanent” presence of 250 troops in Darwin, Australia.  Is reaffirmation of a U.S. commitment in the Pacific intended to send some kind of signal to China?  Yes.  But to counter what? China’s alleged expansionary designs?  With 250 troops? 

Sure, the Chinese government has asserted disputable and disputed territorial claims throughout the South China Sea and sure the Aussies and Filipinos and Indonesians and Vietnamese would love to devote their resources to economic growth while U.S. taxpayers pick up their security costs, but the headline gives the impression of imminent conflagration.

I am growing more confident that any confrontation between the United States and China — should that occur in the years ahead — is more likely to be the product of provocative media sensationalism intended to arouse U.S. nationalism than any real belligerence on the part of China.

* As of 2:25, the headline has been softened somewhat to “U.S. Troops Headed to Australia, Irking China.”

Pining for the Next War at the Washington Post? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Earlier this year, the Cato Institute published a study of mine titled “Economic Self-Flagellation: How U.S. Antidumping Policy Subverts the National Export Initiative.” The thrust of the paper is that most U.S. antidumping measures restrict and tax the importation of crucial raw materials and intermediate goods used by U.S. producers to make their own final goods. Accordingly, these antidumping measures—imposed for the benefit of one or two or a few firms in less competitive upstream industries—raise the costs of production for downstream U.S. producers and undermine their ability to compete at home and abroad.

The paper contains many statistics and details, and makes a very practical case for antidumping reform. But if you want just the highlights and would prefer to absorb them through a more passive medium, my Cato colleagues Caleb Brown and Austin Bragg have produced an excellent, 3-and-a-half-minute video, which gets straight to the point:

On the other hand, if you can’t get enough original research on U.S. antidumping policy, please visit our growing online library of antidumping resources (most, but not all, of the content there pertains to antidumping policy).

The Ravages of Antidumping (in a 3.5 Minute Video) is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Public angst over China’s rise and the threat of populist currency legislation have prompted speculation about a U.S.-China “Trade War.” With the 2012 elections still a whole year away, there is ample opportunity for campaigning politicians to ignite that fuse.

But pyrotechnics aren’t necessary. Rather than a 1930s-style free-for-all, a trade war—if one were to begin—is more likely to be of the lowercase, “rules-based” variety, where trade restrictions are imposed in compliance (or under the pretense of compliance) with global trade rules. Many of the battles would be waged behind the façade of so-called trade remedy laws.

Antidumping and countervailing duty measures are the most commonly invoked forms of “contingent protectionism” permitted under World Trade Organization rules. Those rules allow member governments to maintain and administer national antidumping and countervailing duty laws to remedy—through the imposition of customs duties—the effects of imports determined to be sold at unfairly low prices (antidumping) or determined to be unfairly subsidized by a government (countervailing). But imposing “remedies” under these laws is contingent upon certain conditions being met. Two core conditions are that the administering authorities need to demonstrate that the imports in question are being dumped or subsidized, and that those dumped or subsidized imports are causing or threatening material injury to the domestic industry.

A determination expected tomorrow from the U.S. International Trade Commission offers a case in point. The Commission will vote on the question of whether dumped and subsidized imports of multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from China are causing or threatening material injury to the U.S. MLWF industry. An affirmative determination could invite Chinese retaliation because the evidence of a causal connection between imports from China and injury to the U.S. industry is weak to non-existent. If the U.S. government is going to stretch or skirt the evidentiary standards established by domestic law and international treaty, the Chinese government may be inclined to do the same. (In fact, the Chinese government is already alleged to have broken those rules – and the United States is seeking recourse in the WTO – when it imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on U.S. chicken exports in 2010.)

Multilayered wood flooring is a floor covering product—used for the same practical purposes as hardwood flooring, tile, and carpeting. Sales of MLWF are highly dependent upon new housing starts and remodeling expenditures, both of which tanked when the housing bubble burst in 2008. As a result of U.S. housing starts declining from a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.1 million units in February 2008 to just 505,000 units in March 2009, as well as the large decline in remodeling activity over the same period, MLWF industry prices, shipments, revenues, and profits declined substantially, as did imports from China and other countries. But since the second quarter of 2009, housing starts have been stable at about 600,000 units per year and remodeling activity has been steady at about $112 billion per year.

Importantly for the injury analysis, this period of stability in housing starts and renovation activity enables an analysis that isolates the effects of imports on the domestic industry. And what is evident is that, as domestic consumption of MLWF picked up, so did U.S. imports, producer shipments, revenues, and profits (from -9.9 percent in 2009 to -1.0 percent in the first half of 2011). Increasing volumes of subject imports correlate with an improving condition of the domestic industry. Throughout the period of stabilization, prices in the U.S. market have been steady, as well. If imports from China were to have an injurious effect on the domestic industry, one would expect the increasing volume of such imports to drive down prices in the United States. But imports from China, on average, do not underprice domestic MLWF. According to the public version of the USITC Staff Report in this matter:

…prices for MLWF from China were below those for U.S.-produced MLWF in 60 of 110 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 1.5 to 36.4 percent. In the remaining 50 instances, prices for MLWF imported from China were above those for U.S.-produced MLWF; margins of overselling ranged from 0.1 to 30.4 percent.

An affirmative finding of injurious dumping and/or subsidization from the USITC tomorrow would require disregard of these and other crucial facts and would warrant closer scrutiny of the antidumping regime. It would also invite similar actions from Chinese trade remedies authorities and then who know where it will lead.

Trade Law, Trade War, and the Case of Multilayered Wood Flooring from China is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Supporters of the so-called China Currency legislation fall into two camps. There are those frustrated by the fact that the Chinese government no longer asks “How high?” when U.S. policymakers shout “jump!” For this camp, the legislation is a therapeutic exercise in venting – the legislative equivalent of road rage. It might make trade relations and the economy worse, but boy does teeing off on those Chinese upstarts sure feel good.  This is hardly the recipe for smart policy.

The other camp of supporters believes that the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011 will, in fact, produce a positive outcome. This camp accepts three sequential premises (whether they realize it or not): (1) the legislation under consideration will compel China toward faster yuan appreciation; (2) a rising yuan will reduce the bilateral trade deficit, and; (3) a smaller bilateral trade deficit with lead to U.S. job creation. In short, this camp sees the legislation as a jobs bill.

But the likelihood of that sequence of events playing out is remote. Indeed, the ensuing analysis finds the legislation under consideration to be at least 300 percent more likely (or, if you prefer, four times as likely) to destroy U.S. jobs than it is to create them.

Let’s start by evaluating the second premise. What is the likelihood that a rising yuan will reduce the bilateral trade deficit? Well, from 1997 to July 2005, the yuan was pegged at a dollar value of about 12.08 cents. Between July 2005 and July 2008, the value of the yuan in dollar terms increased by 21 percent to 14.64 cents. Surely, proponents of the legislation would want to cite the dramatic reduction in the bilateral trade deficit that followed this period of yuan appreciation to support their position. Alas, during that period, the bilateral trade deficit increased by 33 percent from $202 billion to $268 billion. Since June 2010, the Yuan has appreciated by another 7 percent against the dollar. And the bilateral trade deficit? It’s on target for to be one-third larger in 2011 than it was last year.

So, recent evidence doesn’t support the premise of an inverse relationship between the value of the yuan and the size of bilateral U.S. deficit. Instead, both have increased simultaneously. Yet proponents of the law insist that a rising yuan will lead to a reduced bilateral deficit. Where is any evidence of this?

The truth is that the relationship between currency values and final goods trade flows has been complicated by the fact of intermediate goods trade. Globalization and the proliferation of transnational supply chains—which means far more intermediate goods trade than in the past—has dulled the impact of currency values on final goods trade.

Only about half of the value of Chinese exports to the United States is actually Chinese value. The other half is value from components produced in other countries. When the yuan appreciates, those imported intermediate goods become less expensive to Chinese producers, who can then reduce their prices for export and preserve their market shares abroad. Despite the 21 percent appreciation of the yuan between 2005 and 2008, U.S. imports increased by 39 percent.

(This analysis goes into detail about the points raised in the previous three paragraphs.)

Though recent history suggests the probability is very much lower, let’s give currency legislation proponents the benefit of the doubt and assume a 50 percent chance that future yuan appreciation will reduce the bilateral trade deficit.

The next necessary condition in the sequence is that the smaller bilateral trade deficit creates U.S. jobs. That is the premise of the oft-cited study from the Economic Policy Institute that claims the bilateral deficit with China cost 2.8 million U.S. jobs between 2001 and 2010. The study’s author asserts: “Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in the United States, and increases in imports tend to lead to job loss. Thus, a growing trade deficit signifies growing job loss.”

Well, that assertion is demonstrably false – as evidenced by the chart in this post. Instead of an inverse relationship between the bilateral trade deficit and jobs, there appears to be a positive relationship. Just have a look: when the deficit increases, U.S. employment rises; when the deficit shrinks, U.S. employment declines.

In the quarter century between 1983 and 2007, as real GDP more than doubled and the real value of U.S. trade increased five-fold and the U.S. trade deficit increased from $73 billion to $655 billion, the U.S. economy created 46 million net new jobs, or 1.84 million net new jobs per year. And as economic growth came to a halt and then turned negative during the recent recession, trade contracted by 12 percent, the deficit fell from $655 billion in 2007 to $363 billion in 2009, and the economy shed over six million jobs. This experience is diametrically opposite the contention of EPI.

Despite ample doubt that a shrinking trade deficit leads to U.S. job creation, let’s assume—again to err on the side of currency legislation proponents—that the likelihood of that unlikely occurrence is 50 percent.

Now, let’s go back and evaluate the first premise of this chain of premises – that the legislation will be an effective prod that compels the Chinese government to allow faster appreciation. Remember the logic of the second camp: the legislation compels faster yuan appreciation, which reduces the bilateral deficit, which spurs U.S. job growth.

It is highly unlikely that the legislation will prod China into allowing faster appreciation. If anything, it could prompt China to slow or stop yuan appreciation to make a strong political statement that it will not be bullied – particularly not by a government that doesn’t have its economic house in order. But it is more likely that China would continue to allow appreciation at a pace it deems appropriate. After all, the government favors currency appreciation as an instrument to deal with domestic economic concerns, like rising inflation.

Realistically, China could simply ignore the law, stick with its own timetable for currency appreciation, and contest at the WTO any U.S. actions that come to bear — though any such actions would be at least two years away given the action-triggers and admininistrative timelines of the law.  But again, let’s indulge the legislation’s proponents and estimate that there is a 50 percent probability that passage of the legislation will induce China not to accelerate appreciation of the yuan.

Now let’s do the math. If there’s a 50 percent chance that the legislation compels China to allow faster appreciation of the yuan and a 50 percent chance that yuan appreciation reduces the bilateral trade deficit and a 50 percent chance that a smaller bilateral trade deficit leads to job creation, then—under these very generous assumptions—the legislation has a 12.5 percent likelihood of creating U.S. jobs.  (Gives a pretty good indication of what Harry Reid thinks of President Obama’s jobs bill that he would keep it sidelined in favor of a bill that has a one-in-eight chance of creating jobs).

Compare that probability to the likelihood that the Chinese government would react to passage of this legislation with retaliatory measures that would make life more difficult for U.S. exporters or U.S. companies doing business in China. What would that do for U.S. jobs? Recall that China imposed trade remedy duties on chicken and auto parts in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. imposition of duties on Chinese tires in 2009 (i.e., China retaliated). Several agencies within the Chinese government has even stated that this currency legislation likely would lead to a trade war.

If we estimate the likelihood of Chinese retaliation, which would adversely impact U.S. employment, to be 50 percent (another conservative assumption given past reactions and current statements), it is fair to conclude that the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011 is a job-destruction bill. With a 300 percent greater likelihood of destroying rather than creating jobs, the laws cosponsors and supporters have not done the proper analysis.  But why would they anyway? This whole enterprise is just another Washington diversion from the real solutions at the American public’s expense.

Create Jobs? China Currency Bill Is at Least 300 Percent More Likely to Destroy Jobs is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The good news for those craving harmony in Washington is that that mythical elixir called bipartisanship has been spotted in Congress. The bad news is that it is finding its expression in an outbreak of self-destructive China-bashing.

After 8 years of threatening punitive action to compel appreciation of the Chinese currency at a pace deemed acceptable by U.S. politicians (a period, by the way, in which the Yuan appreciated by 30% against the dollar in nominal terms—and by much more in real terms), lawmakers may just pull the trigger this time. If so, their action should be seen for what it is: a vote of no confidence in themselves as a body capable of producing solutions to the nation’s economic stagnation and monumental budget and debt woes.

China currency legislation is a diversion – a shell game. Despite the opinions of Harold Meyerson and Fred Bergsten, there simply isn’t any evidence that a stronger Yuan will produce a smaller bilateral trade deficit or that a smaller trade deficit will boost employment. Indeed, policymakers shouldn’t be targeting trade deficit reduction in the first place—let alone a bilateral trade deficit, which is meaningless in a world dominated by trade in intermediate goods.

As explained here and here, globalization with it transnational production sharing and cross-border investment has mitigated the impact of currency values on trade flows. Because the value of imported inputs accounts for about half of the value of Chinese exports, a stronger Yuan reduces the prices of imported inputs used to manufacture and assemble products in China for export to the United States and elsewhere. This dampens any expected impact of a rising currency. In fact, between July 2005 and July 2008 the renminbi rose 21% against the dollar, to $.1464 from $.1208, where it had been pegged since 1997. But the U.S. bilateral trade deficit increased from $202 billion to $268 billion over that period. Since June 2010, the Yuan has appreciated by 7 percent against the dollar, but the bilateral trade deficit is on target to be 34% larger in 2011 than it was last year. And (as described here and here) there is no discernible relationship between trade deficits and employment.

Broader support on Capitol Hill for currency legislation boils down to this: with public approval ratings hovering in the low-to-mid teens, an embattled Congress is looking for plausible scapegoats for the dismal state of U.S. economic affairs. Thanks to a lot of media-driven hype about China’s inexorable rise at U.S. expense, Americans fear China almost as much as they loathe Congress. A vote to reclaim American jobs stolen by China—as the currency legislation is so disingenuously characterized by some of its supporters—enables politicians to return to their states and districts with concrete evidence of the seriousness of their efforts.

Only it’s not serious. It’s deeply dismaying. Instead of working hard to change homegrown U.S. policies that inhibit investment, job creation, and growth, our elected officials would choose to lay the blame for our woes at China’s feet, then cross their fingers and hope that their provocative, unilateralist legislation doesn’t unleash a torrent of adverse consequences that would make economic matters even worse. Can there be a stronger admission of failure than to launch such a desperate Hail Mary?

China Currency Legislation Is a Desperate Mistake is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

A couple of weeks ago I suggested that the person responsible for Ford’s anti-bailout ads was deserving of a raise. Today, I wonder how that extra income will be spent…in Siberia. According to media accounts seemingly originating with the Detroit News, Ford has pulled that ad after learning the Putin Obama White House was none too pleased.

It is unclear from the Detroit News article whether overt threats, implied repercussions, or mild expressions of regret best characterize the communications from the White House to Ford. Regardless, something spooked Ford enough to prompt it to pull the popular ad (no longer available on YouTube), which sought to differentiate the Ford brand over the “bailout” characteristic, which is not insignificant to auto purchasing decisions.

Hopefully, some probing journalists will discover the true nature of what transpired. In the meantime, it’s important to reflect on the fact that—contrary to the views of E.J. Dionne and others who cannot contemplate what is not seen—the auto bailout was not a discrete event, which happened and now resides in our memories. It is an ongoing tipping of the scales of competition—intentionally and inadvertently. Ford’s mere perception that the administration might stir up trouble if it didn’t fall into line is a vestige of the bailout.

To the extent that the administration wants to tout the bailout as evidence of its “successful” economic stewardship, it should know that there are plenty of us willing and able to do the auditing on that claim.

Ongoing Ripples from the Auto Bailout is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The Congressional Joint Economic Committee held a hearing this week entitled “Manufacturing in the USA: How U.S. Trade Policy Offshores Jobs.” The intended purpose of the hearing was to examine how foreign unfair trade practices encourage the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing. Thankfully, not all witnesses stayed within the contours of that presumption.

I say “thankfully” because the incessant focus of politicians on fixing the policies and practices of foreign governments, as though they were the primary impediments to U.S. business success at home and abroad, is a diversion that should no longer be tolerated. It gives the appearance that our elected officials are earnestly seeking appropriate solutions, while further obscuring the real solutions. Meanwhile, it protects incumbents from having to make substantive, consequential choices.

I’ve written lately (in this policy paper and in this op-ed) about how U.S. trade policy undermines the competitiveness of U.S. firms and chases some producers offshore. But I find some of the greatest impediments to U.S. firms’ success to be homegrown, domestic policies that place unnecessary restrictions and burdens on U.S. firms trying to compete in a global economy.

I elaborated on those points in written testimony submitted to the committee, the introduction of which follows:

Too many U.S. policymakers, from Capitol Hill to the various executive branch agencies in Washington, tend to focus on foreign policies and foreign barriers when considering how best to improve the competitive prospects for U.S. firms. The presumption is that the major impediments to the success of U.S. firms are foreign born. Closed foreign markets, complex laws and regulations, overt flaunting of the trade rules, subtle protectionism, and unfair trade are the primary culprits that subvert the success of U.S. firms, discourage investment and hiring, and encourage offshoring of production. Indeed, that is the premise of today’s hearing, as inferred from its description on the Committee’s website.

But that premise is myopic and, frankly, irresponsible. It reinforces arguments for nonsensical policies, such as preserving our own barriers to trade and investment, which are nothing more than costs to U.S. businesses and families. Policies that raise the cost of doing business in the United States—such as our tariff regime and the trade remedies duties that the U.S. government imposes on broad swaths of industrial inputs—encourage manufacturers to at least consider moving operations abroad, where those materials are available at better prices.

Governments are competing for business investment and talent, which both tend to flow to jurisdictions where the rule of law is clear and abided; where there is greater certainty to the business and political climate; where the specter of asset expropriation is negligible; where physical and administrative infrastructure is in good shape; where the local work force is productive; where there are limited physical, political, and administrative frictions. This global competition in policy is a positive development. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that the United States is somehow immune from this dynamic and does not have to compete and earn its share with good policies. The decisions made now with respect to our policies on immigration, education, energy, trade, entitlements, taxes, and the role of government in managing the economy will determine the health, competitiveness, and relative significance of the U.S. economy in the decades ahead.

Eyes Wide Shut to Trade Policies That Would Encourage Domestic Investment and Hiring is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

On Tuesday, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative launched a formal dispute at the World Trade Organization over China’s imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on U.S. exports of chicken broilers.  According to a summary of the U.S. complaint, China implemented its antidumping and countervailing duty laws in manners that violate that country’s WTO obligations.  The alleged violations include: failure to observe numerous transparency and due process requirements; failure to properly explain the basis for its findings and conclusions; failure to properly calculate margins of dumping and subsidy amounts, and; failure to support findings of material injury to the Chinese chicken industry.

Under the WTO agreements, member governments are entitled to use their domestic “trade remedies” laws to measure and address imports that are alleged to be “unfairly” priced and injurious of the domestic industry.  However, execution of those laws must comport with certain standards – fairly deferential standards, no doubt – that are spelled out in the WTO Antidumping Agreement and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  The basis for the U.S. complaint is that those standards were not met by the Chinese government, when it investigated and ultimately foundU.S.chicken exporters to be engaging in injurious dumping and benefiting from government subsidies.

I would say something about “just deserts” or “comeuppance” or “what goes around, comes around,” but that would wrongly imply that the U.S. poultry industry is to blame for U.S. antidumping abuse or its protégé, proliferating global antidumping abuse.  Besides, there’s a different point to be made on this occasion.  That is, transactions between parties in the world’s two largest economies are going to generate frictions from time to time.  Sometimes those frictions will rub raw.  But, by and large, there are proven mechanisms in place to alleviate pressures and resolve disputes that should be respected.  Regardless of the final outcome in this case – the parties could settle after consulting over the issues or, barring settlement, the issues could be adjudicated by a dispute settlement panel and, ultimately, by the WTO Appellate Body – the course being taken comports with the meaning of trade enforcement and respects the rules of international trade.

Kudos to the USTR and his General Counsel’s office for doing the legal research and analyses necessary to ensure the strongest of cases, and for reminding antsy lawmakers across town that there are reasonable alternative to trade unilateralism.

The Right Way to ‘Enforce’ Trade Agreements is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The Economic Policy Institute is at it again, asserting itself as an unrivaled purveyor of economic nonsense. Every year, the labor-sponsored lobbying shop produces a sensational report, which presumes to measure the deleterious impact of trade with China on U.S. employment. And every year those figures become scripture to the likes of Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Mike Michaud, in their efforts to make Americans less free to choose how and with whom to transact.

This year’s takeaway is: “Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 2.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2010.” In the report summary on EPI’s homepage, author Robert Scott makes the following claim: “Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in the United States, and increases in imports tend to lead to job loss.　Thus, a growing trade deficit signifies growing job loss.”

Well, that might be true…but for the fact that it’s demonstrably false.

As the chart below (which is based on easily verifiable figures published in the Economic Report of the President) reveals, the trade deficit and job creation appear to be positively correlated. When the deficit rises, employment increases; when the deficit shrinks, employment declines. So, right off the bat, a central premise of Scott’s analysis is in doubt.

Beyond that problem, EPI’s methodology is not taken seriously by most economists because, for one, it approximates job gains from export value and job losses from import value, as though there were a straight line correlation between the figures. There’s not. And it pretends that imports do not create or support U.S. jobs, which is clearly wrong. After all, U.S. producers — purchasing raw materials, components and capital equipment — accounted for more than half of the value of all U.S. imports last year ($1.05 trillion). In other words, the majority of U.S. imports support U.S. economic activity, which is the basis of U.S. employment. Yet EPI’s methodology counts those imports as jobs-reducing.

Last month, the U.S. International Trade Commission published its seventh update to the “The Economic Effects of Significant U.S. Import Restraints” study, which contains a special section on global supply chains. On page xv of the executive summary is a table that not only raises more serious doubts about EPI’s methodology, but should put to rest once and for all the hyperbole employed and anxiety caused by alarmist public relations campaigns and the politicians they serve.

Table ES.4 of that study indicates that there is more U.S. valued added (U.S. labor, material, and overhead) in U.S. imports than there is Chinese valued added in U.S. imports. Specifically, 8.3 percent of the value of U.S. imports (about $160 billion last year) is U.S. value, while 7.7 percent of the value of U.S. imports is Chinese value added. EPI’s methodology does not account for the U.S. jobs associated with the U.S. value added in U.S. imports.

Furthermore, that same table reveals that U.S. value added accounts for 89 percent of total U.S. consumption (a figure that confirms the findings in a recent San Francisco Federal Reserve study), which means that foreign value-added accounts for just 11 percent of U.S. consumption, making the United States a fairly closed economy—or at least, a relatively non-integrated economy. And China? Well, China only accounts for a measly 0.9 percent of the goods and services consumed in the United States. So, if 2.8 million U.S. jobs were lost to a country that produces less than one percent of what Americans consume, I say its about time we shed those highly inefficient jobs that have been a drag on the U.S. economy. The fact is, however, that 2.8 million is a fiction.

EPI’s jobs loss figures also fail to reflect the fact that the U.S. capital account surplus – the flip side of the current account deficit – is a considerable source of U.S. employment. Foreign investment in U.S. plants, property, hotels, equities, debt, and other assets provide employment for millions of Americans in much the same way that U.S. exports do.

Yes, the 2.8 million job loss figure is a fiction, concocted to support political talking points and a narrow agenda that distract the public from the real problems that ail our economy. Some Chinese government policies are genuine causes for concern, worthy of efforts to resolve, but we limit our capacity to address the real problems effectively when every last gripe becomes a call to arms.

Fiction Still Drives the U.S.-China Trade Debate is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

From Fall 2008 through Summer 2009—the most intense months of the “Bailruptcy Era”—I ventured on occasion to question Ford’s near total silence in the face of an unprecedented intervention to rescue its chief rivals from a hard-earned fate.  In pondering whether Ford would defend its interests, I wrote:

There is probably no company in America that stands to lose more from taxpayer subsidization of GM and Chrysler…

 If GM and Chrysler were no longer producing, Ford would be able to pick up market share and productive assets from the others, and ultimately improve its own long term prospects. By keeping GM and Chrysler afloat with subsidies, the government is implicitly taxing Ford. Ford is facing unfair, government-subsidized competition, of the sort alleged against foreign producers all the time. But in this case, the subsidies are real, direct, quantifiable, and large.

Well, Ford did remain silent about the rescue operation (for reasons I never found particularly compelling). 

Fast forward to Ford’s Summer 2011 television advertising campaign, which includes commercials featuring Ford customers giving press conferences to answer questions about why they chose Ford.  One of those commercials (this one, HT Gene Healy) has the customer explaining that he’d never buy a car from a company that was bailed out by our goverment, which, as it turns out, is a compelling determinant of demand these days. 

In branding itself as the unbailed-out Detroit producer, Ford has politely ended its silence on the matter of the GM and Chrysler bail-ruptcies, in a very smart, respectable manner.  And by using actors instead of executives to speak ill of the auto intervention, Ford keeps its own bailout raincheck in a safe place, should the inclination to redeem it ever become irresistable. 

Somebody at Ford deserves a raise.

Somebody Deserves a Raise at the Ford Motor Company is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

As the president was pitching his jobs plan last night, his current policies were hard at work discouraging job creation and incentivizing layoffs. 

One of innumerable such policies concerns the treatment of imported raw materials and other intermediate goods that are subject to antidumping or countervailing duty measures, but needed by U.S. producers to make their final products. It almost defies comprehension that, in a modern, interdependent economy characterized by transnational supply chains and cross-border investment, over 80 percent of all U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty measures are imposed on these ingredients of U.S. production. This policy drives up the cost of production for downstream U.S. industries, making it more difficult for them to compete in the United States and abroad, curtailing profits, investment, and hiring.

However, under the U.S. Foreign Trade Zones program, some of the costs inflicted on downstream, import-consuming firms can be mitigated. (Of course, the program wouldn’t be necessary if U.S. duties were recognized as just another cost of production and set, optimally, at zero.) Among the aims of the FTZ program is to encourage manufacturing activity in the United States (and to discourage manufacturers from shuttering domestic operations and moving offshore as a result of the burden of paying U.S. customs duties).

FTZs are usually manufacturing plants or facilities physically located within the United States, but considered outside U.S. territory for the purpose of customs duty payment. Goods that enter FTZs are not subject to customs duties (including antidumping or countervailing duties) until they leave the zone and are formally entered into the commerce of the United States. If those goods are used as inputs to a further manufacturing process, the rate of duty applicable to the final product is assessed. If the goods are exported from a FTZ, with or without further processing, no duties are imposed because the product never officially “entered” the United States.

With respect to products made from materials and components subject to AD or CVD duties, the standing regulations require FTZ operators to get advance approval from the Foreign Trade Zones Board if the intention is to sell those final products in the United States. That requirement does not apply when the final product is going to be exported from the FTZ, which provides some incentive to downstream U.S. firms to keep production in the United States by operating as a FTZ.

But now the Obama administration—at the behest of the antidumping petitioners’ bar and organized labor, and despite its own exhortations to U.S. companies to double exports, invest in America, and put Americans back to work—is proposing to seal off that channel of sanity and compromise. New regulations would require advance approval even if the final product was going to be exported.

The requirement of advance approval from the FTZ Board, which is administered within the Import Administration—the same agency at the Commerce Department that simultaneously assists protection-seekers in crafting their AD/CVD petitions, while gleefully implementing and administratively adjudicating the antidumping and countervailing duty laws—will tip the balance in favor of outsourcing production for many firms in many industries. Any benefits of continuing to produce in the United States will be diminish next to the rising costs and uncertainty of doing so.

Thus, companies like Dow Corning, which uses silicon metal to produce silicone components for solar panels, will have that much more incentive to shutter operations in Kentucky and set up shop in Canada or elsewhere, where silicon metal is available at lower world market prices, so that it can compete in foreign solar panel markets with Chinese, Japanese, Canadian, and European rivals.

Asking American firms to invest and hire, while simultaneously pushing policies to raise the cost of those activities, reflects either profound cynicism or incompetence.

Rather than charge another several hundred billion dollars to the national credit card in the name of job creation, the president should launch a genuine, expedited assessment of the maze of administrative rules and regulations that raise the cost of doing business in the United States – not just the window-dressing review that has produced trivial changes so far.

That tack may ruffle the feathers of those who profit from the obscured status quo – people like Trumpka, Hoffa, Pelosi, and Reid – but it would be the proper course of action for a president willing to “put country before party,” to borrow a phrase.

One Expensive New Job Forward, Two Existing Jobs Back is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Rhetorically, President Obama is a champion of industry—as long as it’s green. To put our money where his mouth is, the president has already devoted over $100 billion in direct subsidies and tax credits to promote investment in solar panel, wind harnessing, lithium ion battery, and other industries he deems crucial to “winning the future.” (See Economic Report of the President, 2011, P. 129, Box 6-2 “Clean Energy Investments in the Recovery Act” for a list of some of those subsidies.) Concerning those industries, the president said in his 2010 SOTU address:

Countries like China are moving even faster… I’m not going to settle for a situation where the United States comes in second place or third place or fourth place in what will be the most important economic engine of the future.

To be sure, I am opposed to industrial policy, which presumes that one person or a cabal of self-anointed soothsayers knows how the future will unfold. But the story I am about to share is, I think, instructive in describing endemic policy dissonance within this administration and speaks to what even the president’s staunchest supporters describe as half-heartedness and an incapacity or unwillingness to follow through. Some chalk it up to indifference, but it’s really an aversion to making choices that could offend potential supporters.

While the president talks up the solar panel industry and commits our resources to its development, other policies of his administration undermine its success and encourage offshoring of production and the jobs that go with it. Dow Corning is one of the world’s largest producers of silicones, which are the most crucial components of solar panel production. The foremost ingredient in these silicones is silicon metal, which costs nearly twice the world market price in the United States because of antidumping restrictions on imports of the raw material from China and Russia (two of the world’s largest suppliers). Under U.S. antidumping law, Dow Corning and all other consumers of silicon metal were forbidden from participating formally in the proceedings that lead to the imposition of the duties.

As I described in a recent Cato policy paper, this is more than just tough luck for a few companies. This is economic self-flagellation on a grand scale. The antidumping statute prohibits consideration of the impact of prospective duties on downstream industries or on the economy as a whole, yet policymakers—having been steamrolled by the pro-antidumping lobby—have given scant consideration to the idea that this is plainly stupid policy, particularly in a globally integrated economy characterized by transnational supply chains and cross-border investment. In such an environment, if one hopes the best for the country’s value-added industries, there should be no restrictions on raw material inputs ever (a policy being embraced by other governments around the world).

Alas, the silicon metal restrictions constitute a big problem for Dow Corning and other industrial consumers of silicon metal, but a bigger problem for the economy. To compete with producers of silicones—the solar panel industries—in Europe, Japan, Canada, and China, Dow Corning is forced to consider moving production abroad so that it is not at such a large cost disadvantage from the outset. As Dow Corning officials put it in a very informative letter:

If Dow Corning were to move the production occurring within its Kentucky operations to any country outside the U.S., it would be more competitive by simply having access to the same global supply of raw materials as all other competitors.

Dow Corning could move offshore, a move it would prefer not to make, and probably recover the costs of the transition in short order. But doing so would reduce U.S. economic activity and destroy U.S. jobs, which would have a more lasting adverse impact. So, in an effort to avoid offshoring its operations—a move that one would think the administration would welcome—Dow Corning submitted an application to have some of its silicone production facilities in Kentucky designated as a Foreign Trade Subzone. The key policy objective of foreign trade zones, according to the former president of the National Association of Foreign Trade Zones is:

The optimization of economic development in the United States creating jobs, investment and value-added activity. The current regulations strike a balance that considers antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners, importers and U.S. manufacturers. Imported products that are made with components that may be dumped or subsidized are not subject to antidumping duty or countervailing duty. If these duties can be avoided by locating a factory in a foreign country, the Board should at least consider allowing it to happen here for export so that American workers can benefit. That is what the regulation achieves.

Basically, Dow Corning was proposing that to balance its need for access to world-priced silicon metal with the country’s need for economic activity and jobs, it would bring in silicon metal from foreign sources, including silicon metal from China and Russia, to be transformed into silicons in that subzone. Antidumping duties on silicon metals that were used to make silicones that were subsequently exported without first “entering the commerce of the United States” would be waived, while antidumping duties on silicon metals used to make silicones sold in the United States would be subject to the full payment of duties.

But during the period in which the FTZ application was pending, an army of professional antidumping law supporters—the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws (CSUSTL), the United Steelworkers Union, the Steel Manufacturers Association, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), and others—argued that granting the designation would serve only to circumvent the antidumping order, and that the well-being of the petitioner was all that mattered under the antidumping law.

After hearings, several comment periods, and deliberation the Foreign Trade Zones Board granted Dow Corning’s FTZ request, but “subject to a restriction prohibiting the admission of foreign status silicon metal subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order,” thereby negating the entire purpose of the application and effectively daring Dow Corning to shut down its Kentucky operations and move abroad. That decision was signed by the acting assistant secretary for import administration—the same person charged with overseeing the Commerce Department’s notoriously pro-petitioner, antidumping regime, and, for the record, a person who answers to President Obama.

Did the president know what was at stake and look the other way? Or did he not even know? Neither answer reflects particularly well on a man claiming to have a plan for job creation and economic growth.

President’s Fealty to Antidumping Lobby Kills Jobs and Depresses Growth is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

First there was the “iPod Paper.” That now-iconic study found that Chinese inputs amount to only $6 of the $150 cost of producing an Apple iPod, yet the entire $150 is chalked up as an import from China. Then there were spin-off studies for the iPhone and iPad (described and editorialized here), reaching similar conclusions. This week the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco published an excellent contribution to the growing body of literature supporting the conclusion that “Made in China” labeling and trade flow statistics, more broadly, are farcically uninformative and dangerously misleading.

In light of next month’s start to what is likely to be 14 months of nastier-than-usual China-bashing from unions, paid advocates of protectionism, politicians running from the real issues, and other shallow thinkers, the new Fed paper is a timely and welcomed addition for those of us in the business of presenting fact- and logic-based arguments.

Among the study’s findings are:

• Despite globalization, the U.S. economy “actually remains relatively closed.” (By “relatively closed,” the authors mean that imports are puny compared to the size of the economy—not that U.S. policies are relatively restrictive of imports.)
• The vast majority of goods and services purchased by U.S. consumers (88.5%) is produced in the United States
• When accounting for the value of foreign content in final U.S. production of goods and services, 86.1% of U.S. consumer purchases of goods and services is produced in the United States.
• Of the 11.5% of total U.S. consumer spending on imports, 64% accounts for the goods and services produced abroad and 36% accounts for transportation, wholesaling, retailing and other activities performed in the United States.
• Only 2.7% of U.S. consumer spending is devoted to goods labeled “Made in China.”
• Of the 2.7% of U.S. consumer spending on imports from China, only 45% is for the foreign-produced good and 55% goes to transportation, wholesaling, retailing, and other activities performed in the United States. In other words, $.55 of every dollar spent on imports from China directly supports economic activity in the United States.

This Cato paper gives broader perspective to the findings of the aforementioned studies.

$0.55 of Every Consumer Dollar Spent on Imports from China Goes to U.S. Transporters, Wholesalers, and Retailers is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

In hailing this week’s ruling by a World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel that certain Chinese government restrictions on raw material exports violate China’s WTO commitments, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk made the point that such restrictions hurt U.S. manufacturers who rely on those imported raw materials.

Today’s panel report represents a significant victory for manufacturers and workers in the United States and the rest of the world. The panel’s findings are also an important confirmation of fundamental principles underlying the global trading system. All WTO Members – whether developed or developing – need non-discriminatory access to raw material supplies in order to grow and thrive.

And, simultaneously, by artificially increasing domestic supply, the same export restrictions advantage Chinese manufacturing consumers of those materials.

China’s extensive use of export restraints for protectionist economic gain is deeply troubling. China’s policies provide substantial competitive advantages for downstream Chinese industries at the expense of non-Chinese users of these materials.

And here’s how the USTR website described the central issues of the case:

China maintains a number of measures that restrain exports of raw material inputs for which it is the top, or near top, world producer. These measures skew the playing field against the United States and other countries by creating substantial competitive benefits for downstream Chinese producers that use the inputs in the production and export of numerous processed steel, aluminum and chemical products and a wide range of further processed products…These raw material inputs are used to make many processed products in a number of primary manufacturing industries, including steel, aluminum and various chemical industries. These products, in turn become essential components in even more numerous downstream products.

I agree.

But what you won’t find in the USTR’s statements is any acknowledgement that the U.S. government, in defiance of Ambassador Kirk’s logic, maintains import restrictions on three of the nine raw materials at issue in the China WTO case. That’s right! While arguing correctly that Chinese restrictions on exports of magnesium, silicon metal, and coke raise production costs and subsequently reduce U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, the U.S. government maintains antidumping restrictions on the same inputs, which raises U.S. production costs and reduces U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. (See pages 14-17 of this new Cato paper to learn what happened to certain U.S. industrial consumers of these raw materials)

How can such dissonance persist, you ask? Under the U.S. antidumping law, manufacturing consumers of subject imports have no legal standing to participate in the proceedings. In fact, the U.S. administering agencies are forbidden by statute from even considering the impact of antidumping duties on the downstream, consuming industries. Nor is an assessment of the costs of prospective antidumping restrictions on the broader economy permitted to carry any weight under the statute.

Instead, in the present case, those producers hurt by our own import restrictions had to take the circuitous route of enlisting the support of the USTR to pursue a WTO case to secure – what will eventually be – only a half-a-loaf solution. Even if and when China relents with respect to its export restrictions, the U.S. antidumping restrictions on imported raw materials will persist because the law effectively insulates the patrons of antidumping measures from competition.

It should be embarrassing to the administration that it rigorously pursues a WTO case to end an economic injustice committed by another country that we gleefully inflict upon ourselves. We are committing economic self-flagellation by ignoring antidumping reform in this country, where 80 percent of all antidumping measures in place restrict crucial manufacturing inputs. And it’s not like President Obama doesn’t understand the relationship between manufacturing competitiveness and access to manufacturing inputs. Here’s what the president said less than one year ago, when he signed into law a tariff liberalization bill:

The Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010 will create jobs, help American companies compete, and strengthen manufacturing as a key driver of our economic recovery. And here’s how it works. To make their products, manufacturers—some of whom are represented here today—often have to import certain materials from other countries and pay tariffs on those materials. This legislation will reduce or eliminate some of those tariffs, which will significantly lower costs for American companies across the manufacturing landscape—from cars to chemicals; medical devices to sporting goods. And that will boost output, support good jobs here at home, and lower prices for American consumers.

But, then, at some point, that logic no longer resonates with this administration.

Antidumping reform is an essential ingredient of U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. Anyone inclined to celebrate the U.S. WTO “victory” in the Chinese export restrictions case should understand the rest of that story.

Yet More U.S. Trade Policy Incoherence is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog