Share This

Showing posts with label Tarrifs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tarrifs. Show all posts

Sunday, May 25, 2025

How Asean can ease the birth pains of the multipolar world

 

Power shift: Asean has a big opportunity this week to help usher in the new world order. — Bernama

ON April 2, US President Donald Trump smashed the World Trade Organisation’s system of multilateral trade by announcing the imposition of tariffs, starting at midnight on April 9, on imports from “cheater” countries that were engaging in unfair trade practice. To Trump, a cheater is one that exports more goods to the United States than it imports.

This is nonsensical reasoning. A bilateral trade deficit is not evidence of being “cheated” because the payment to my barber does not mean that I have been cheated and my salary does not imply that my employer has been bamboozled. This nonsense shows that the tariff war is only marginally related to unfair trade practices. The two key reasons for the tariffs are to increase wages by bringing manufacturing jobs back to America and to cement US primacy in the global order with a show of force.

Tragically, the tariffs will neither revive manufacturing nor preserve US primacy. Tariffs will temporarily expand employment in a few sunset industries, but wages will remain stagnant because productivity growth potential in those sectors is nonexistent.

The immediate response to Trump’s show of force were precipitous collapses in the prices of US stocks and bonds, and the value of the US dollar. Investors recognised that this Great Wall of Tariffs had isolated the US economy, inevitably impoverishing it. Hence, 13 hours after the tariffs came into force, Trump suspended them for every trading partner except China. This climbdown made clear that the real target is China, which the US perceives to be an unfriendly power (eg, being friendly to Iran) that is engaging in unfair trading practices (eg piracy of US technologies).

The economist Adam Smith had anticipated this kind of clash in 1776. He observed that the three centuries of globalisation that began with the discovery of the Americas in 1492 and the discovery of the sea route from Europe to India in 1498 had overwhelmingly benefited Europe because its much greater military might enabled it to pillage instead of trade.

Smith, however, foresaw a reversal: the diffusion of technology through trade would eventually narrow the gap between the two groups. The economic rise of Japan, South Korea, China, and India is ushering in today’s messy transition from a unipolar to a multipolar order.

Asean should be guided by two understandings in navigating this transition.

The first is that the current US-China confrontation stems from their shared recognition that the prevention of war would require an eventual agreement on their respective spheres of influence. We are witnessing a defensive race between them to expand their spheres of influence, which is why the US has asserted its rights over Canada, Greenland, Panama, and Gaza; and China’s nine-dash line in the South China Sea has brought its maritime border to the doorstep of several Asean nations.

States that lock themselves into Washington’s orbit will be under strong pressure to decouple from Chinese technology and to shrink commercial ties with the world’s largest trader – sacrificing not only today’s access to the Chinese market (prospectively, tomorrow’s access to India) and compromising their sovereignty.

The second understanding is that this transition has created systemic dangers that require institutional responses. These new dangers include the Thucydides Trap which is the risk of war between rising and established powers; the Kindleberger Trap where inadequate international cooperation leads to ineffective handling of global disasters like climate change; and the Tragedy of the Commons which identifies the coming collapse of the food chain.

The Cold War 2.0 is causing growing collateral damage to Asean. A viable alternative to membership by Asean states in one of the spheres of influence is for Asean to cooperate with other middle power countries to form a nonpartisan club that functions as a buffer zone between the spheres of influence.

It is crucial for this club to achieve critical mass quickly – being big enough in population and GDP to earn begrudging acceptance by Washington, Beijing, and Moscow for its right to remain a neutral force. To achieve critical mass quickly, the founding group of countries must be kept to a manageable number to ease negotiations.

Asean must avoid instinctively shaping a Global South response like convening a new Bandung Conference (which brought together 29 newly independent Asian and African countries in 1955). The goal is not to accentuate class warfare at the international level but to maintain economic globalisation, world peace, and environmental sustainability.

To achieve critical mass quickly, this club must also bridge the Global South and the Global North. After establishing deep cooperation among Asean, Japan and South Korea (thereby setting the tone of North-South cooperation), this Asian grouping should propose to the European Union and United Kingdom the formation of the Atlantic-Pacific Sustainability Partnership (APSP).

The APSP would serve three core functions: (a) defend economic globalisation with a free trade area based on open regionalism; (b) defend global peace and environmental sustainability with a sustainability caucus to reduce tensions among major powers and coordinate actions on common challenges like pandemics; and (c) defend mutual aid with a development assistance agency guided by the 17 United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to counterbalance the use of development aid by major powers as a means of political influence.

Given the accelerated growth of Asean under this new system, the economic weight of the APSP would be more than twice that of China or the US by 2045, making it necessary for US and China to join the APSP to avoid defeat through self-marginalisation.

When this happens, the APSP would have crowded out Cold War 2.0 with cooperative multilateralism.- by  Prof Datuk Dr Woo Wing Thye

Renowned economist Prof Datuk Dr Woo Wing Thye is a visiting professor at Universiti Malaya and research professor at Sunway University. He is also Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of California, Davis; University Chair Professor at Liaoning University; and Distinguished Fellow at the Penang Institute. 

The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.

Source link

Related:

ASEAN-China-GCC cooperation to inject certainty into global economy

Cooperation between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries will unlock immense ..

Related posts:

Appreciating Asean







Monday, October 1, 2018

Trump's tariffs won't restore U.S. jobs

The sewing lines at Bernhard Furniture Company which where skilled craft jobs are growing without the help of tariffs, and company officials

 Related image https://youtu.be/OCk4VkAKKFc

Trump's tariffs won't restore U.S. furniture jobs : https://www.reuters.tv/v/PvWi/2018/09/27/trump-s-tariffs-won-t-restore-u-s-furniture-jobs

In a town where a 30-feet tall chair is the chief landmark, and which is synonymous with a U.S. furniture industry decimated over the years by imports from China, many greet the possibility of tariffs on Chinese goods with a shrug.

No wonder. Of three once bustling Thomasville furniture plants in the city limits, one is being demolished and cleared for parkland, another may become the site of a new police station, and a third is being converted into apartments.

President Donald Trump is threatening to levy tariffs of up to 25 percent on $500 billion of goods imported from China each year, including roughly $20 billion of furniture, as a way to bring back hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost to China and other low-cost competitors.

Yet, the transformation of U.S. industries since China’s emergence as the world’s low-cost producer almost two decades ago means many no longer directly compete with Chinese imports, so tariffs may not translate so easily into more U.S. jobs.

At family-owned Bernhardt Furniture in Lenoir, some 90 miles west of Thomasville, executives say it would take about $30 million in capital investment - some 10 percent of annual sales - to resurrect standard wood furniture lines now mainly made in countries like China and Vietnam.

That is too much to commit based on a policy that a future administration could reverse.

"The theory is you turn (imports) off, the jobs come back. That's not really true... The buildings don't exist. The people don't exist. The machinery does not exist," to make the sorts of furniture that now gets imported, said Alex Bernhardt Jr., chief executive and the company founder's great grandson.

What the company needs now, executives say, is the open markets and steady economy that have allowed it to grow its workforce from below 800 at the end of the 2007-2009 recession to almost 1,500 today - partly on the basis of exports to China.

DIFFERENT COMPANY

That growth has been largely driven by demand for more customized, higher end furniture. In expanding, the 129-year-old company has been hiring not only factory workers, but also designers, marketing experts and other professionals.

In all, it is a different firm from what it was three decades ago when it first began dividing product lines between the United States and Asia.

Economists say the same is true across much of U.S. manufacturing. To invest and hire more workers, executives would need certainty, for example, that consumers would prefer U.S.-made products at a potentially higher price. They would need confidence that tariffs would last beyond the Trump administration and that production could not be shifted to other more cost-competitive countries.

Even then, there may be little incentive to go back to old product lines for industries that have changed dramatically because of globalization.

Across the Rust Belt and the former factory towns of the south, the transformation is apparent. In Buffalo, an old steel mill is now a solar panel factory, and a retail goods manufacturer now houses an office and restaurant park. Near Dayton, Ohio, a shuttered GM plant has reopened as a Chinese-owned auto glass company. Abandoned factories throughout North Carolina have landed on the Environmental Protection Agency's list of "brownfield" sites that need cleanup.

Some companies are considering moving production from China as a result of the tariffs, but the jobs are unlikely to head home.

Illinois-based CCTY Bearing, for example, said it planned to move U.S.-bound production from Zhenjiang, China, to a new plant near Mumbai in India to keep labor costs down.

JLab Audio's China-made Bluetooth products are not being taxed yet, but its chief executive Win Cramer had been scouting for suppliers in Vietnam and Mexico.

"I would love to build products onshore, but consumers have proven time and time again that "Made in America" isn't as valuable a statement as it once was," Cramer said. "They make decisions based on the cost."

The price of, say, its Bluetooth earbud would jump from $20 to as much as $50 if it was made in the United States, Cramer said, far more than what tariffs would add to the cost of imports.

To be sure, early reactions suggest that foreign companies that make U.S.-bound goods in China may move some of that production to the United States. Still, countries such as Vietnam may ultimately benefit the most from Trump's tariffs.

Japanese construction and mining equipment maker Komatsu Ltd < 6301.T > has said it has already shifted some of its production of parts for U.S.-built excavators from China. Part of that production moved to the United States, but some also went to Mexico and Japan.

In South Korea, LG Electronics <066570 .ks=""> and its rival Samsung Electronics <005930 .ks=""> are considering moving parts of U.S.-bound refrigerator and air conditioner production to Mexico, Vietnam or back home, but not to the United States, according to company sources and local media.

STEADY RECOVERY

The responses to Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum show how such steps create both winners and losers.

Producers such as U.S. Steel and Century Aluminum have said they will add at least several hundred jobs as a result of the higher prices they can charge.

Mid-Continental Nail, however, laid off 130 workers because of those higher steel prices, and furniture parts maker Leggett & Platt has warned that rising metal prices would prompt it to shift production abroad.

So far, Washington has imposed duties on $250 billion of Chinese imports and Trump has threatened to slap tariffs on all Chinese goods.

Many economists project new tariffs would on balance either slow down hiring or cause job losses in a manufacturing sector where employment has grown by 10 percent over the past eight years without special protection.

(Graphic: https://tmsnrt.rs/2Q1AFUW)

The furniture industry, among the hardest hit by Chinese imports, has added 43,000 jobs since its employment hit a low of 350,000 in 2011, helped by the recovering housing market and strong consumer demand.

Industry officials say skilled upholsterers and other workers are hard to find, echoing the Federal Reserve's concern about the impact of worker shortages on the U.S. economy.

In Thomasville, few expect that tariffs will bring furniture manufacturing back to its heyday, nor does the community need it, says city manager Kelly Craver, whose parents worked in the furniture and textile industries.

Since the recession, Thomasville has become a residential hub for growing nearby cities such as Greensboro and Charlotte. It also has its own mix of manufacturing and white collar jobs.

Mohawk Industries recently expanded its Thomasville laminate flooring facility while the Old Dominion Freight Line transportation firm and the fast-growing Cook Out burger chain have corporate headquarters there.

"We, for the very first time in this city's existence, are going to have a diversified economy," Craver said.

By Howard Schneider, Reuters

Related posts:



 https://youtu.be/gEmu3Dz--bM "It would not be profitable to build the Focus Active in the U.S. given an expected annual sales volum...

 After laughs at Trump, globalism or patriotism? 

 https://youtu.be/rewri7OdEZA https://youtu.be/QqZv3SLx1oI US-ROK trade: 'horrible' to 'wins'? US President Don..

 Open society and closed minds, Trump bragging as UN Laughs at him

  'Leadership has always been about generosity to those who are less well endowed and fortunate than you are. Often, it is not gene..

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Tariffs won’t make US firms produce in US

https://youtu.be/gEmu3Dz--bM

"It would not be profitable to build the Focus Active in the U.S. given an expected annual sales volume of fewer than 50,000 units," automaker Ford Motor Company said in a statement on Sunday.

US President Donald Trump tweeted earlier on Sunday that "'Ford has abruptly killed a plan to sell a Chinese-made small vehicle in the US because of the prospect of higher US Tariffs.' CNBC. This is just the beginning. This car can now be built in the USA and Ford will pay no tariffs!" Ford quickly clarified the facts, evidently rebuffing Trump's tweet.

Likewise, tech giant Apple Inc. wrote a letter to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, saying that a proposed 25 percent tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports would cover a "wide range of Apple products."

In another tweet, Trump told Apple to make their products in the US instead of China. Apple hasn't responded.

According to the US media, the price of iPhone may increase to $2,000 if the company does as told.

The multinational companies that produce automobile and mobile phones have different manufacturing and sales layouts. Car manufacturers tend to produce their products where they are sold, while mobile phone manufacturers optimize their production chain costs worldwide. That's the natural law of economic globalization which can't be easily changed by a country's government.

The White House lacks understanding of the global production and value chains. "Make your products in the United States instead of China" seems naive. Instead of coercing companies to follow demands, imposing tariffs will only scare them off.

Simply making US companies produce in the US can't deal with the complicated global industry today. We have also learnt from history that neither side will gain in a trade war.

China is the world's largest automobile and mobile phone market. Setting tariff barriers between Beijing and Washington won't make US companies give up on China for the sake of their own country. As long as China doesn't make things hard for US companies, it's unavoidable that they will place production operations in China. The Chinese market can help them make money, but the White House can't.

Most American high-tech companies will face difficulties if they leave China. The larger the market is, the higher return the companies will get from their research and development. High-tech companies, if they can't grow to be giant, don't usually survive for long, and it would be fatal for many of them to lose the Chinese market.

There hasn't been a previous US government that dares to instruct multinational companies in production layouts, and the current administration has overestimated its executive power. The global industrial chain today is formed by market rules established over decades and can't be easily changed by one government.

It would be the White House's dream to expect that the US is not only the world's technology and financial center, but also the world's factory that sells its products globally. If the US doesn't want to wake up from this dream, then the outside world has to step in and rouse Washington.

Source:Global Times

Related:

Trade data shows US economy rejects trade war

The decline in trade will affect both China and the US. It is not only China that will bear the consequences.

China cool to Australia's contradictory policy

China should give up the illusion of persuading Australia to stop containing China together with the US. Instead Beijing should let Canberra calm down and rethink.

China-Africa cooperation charts a new path of mutual benefits

The Chinese people must cherish what the country has earned them. China has no alternative but to continue to learn how to deal with the world in the 21st century. 

Xi's China-Africa guidelines are the keys to the new global paradigm

The "five-no" and "four-can't" are truly inspiring. They correct the concepts of rights and point to the justice of the day. President Xi's points will definitely leave a deep mark on the history of relations between the African continent and China, and the entire world. 

West's sour grapes at China-Africa cooperation

The possibility of the West leading the collaboration with the continent again always exists as long as they do not get their heads jammed by a geopolitical mind-set. 

China-N.Korea friendship benefits whole region

The US, South Korea and Japan must clarify what exactly they want on the Korean Peninsula. They cannot have everything, especially things that contradict each other. If the US wishes for denuclearization and peace on the peninsula, it would see the value of China-North Korea ties and support them.