The US Trade War: Trump's Economic Team Clashes With US Corporations
|in:Viewpoints
Trump's trade war is essentially a conflict between his economic team and American businesses. This is because the Trump economic team, along with the president, holds an out-dated perspective on international trade. The "old" way of analyzing foreign trade with an export being a "win" and an import representing a "loss" for an economy is too simplistic nowadays since companies operate without national borders and many times are on both sides of the transaction. Compelling U.S. multinationals to relocate their operations domestically would cause major disruption, higher prices, considerable losses, financial market turmoil, and ultimately make U.S. companies less competitive globally.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) constructs an ownership-based trade account, which incorporates the role multinational companies play in international trade. This framework adds the direct investment income and receipts that are associated with international transactions. The ownership-based trade account reduces the traditional trade measure by "Half". Is the Trump economic team even aware of the existence of this statistical measure of international trade? In politics, one can create a misleading narrative, but when developing economic policy, it's crucial to base decisions on "facts."
The ownership-based trade measure offers a more accurate modern-day account of international trade, largely due to the substantial overseas investments by US companies over several decades. For example, US majority-owned foreign affiliates have $3.4 trillion in physical assets like property, plants, and equipment, with 50% of these investments in Europe and another 16% in Canada and Mexico. These assets have helped generate $6 trillion in gross sales and $300 billion in net income, according to the most recent data from 2022.
US trade agreements have been crucial in encouraging American companies to grow internationally. Currently, the US has trade agreements with 20 countries, the most significant being the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. Despite these agreements, the Trump administration intends to impose tariffs of up to 25% on a wide array of manufactured goods, even in cases where trade agreements are in place, to incentivize companies to manufacture products within the US.
The reasoning behind Trump's tariff strategy is suspect. First, it implicitly recognizes a significant cost gap between domestic and international production that isn't solely to do unfair trade practices. Second, it does not acknowledge that higher product prices are inevitable, as producing goods in the US would be unprofitable without tariffs. Third, it overlooks the costs involved in creating a new manufacturing "ecosystem," including who will bear these costs and the time required to establish it. Fourth, it places US companies with global manufacturing operations in a situation where they may need to sell or cease some activities. Lastly, it overlooks the fact that simply having a trade surplus does not ensure a strong economy (as shown by Japan and Germany), nor does it necessarily lead to a better standard of living.
The Trump tariff approach is 30 years behind the times. It may have yielded certain economic and financial benefits when exports and imports were associated with specific country names, but that world no longer exists.
Nowadays, the economy, workers, and companies would benefit more if the Trump administration collaborated with US businesses to create a forward-looking manufacturing plan and invested in educating the youth or future workforce. Regrettably, the administration intends to prolong the 2017 tax legislation, which advantages high-income earners, prioritizes consumption over investment, leads to massive budget deficits, and simultaneously dismantles the education department.
"Has the Era of American Exceptionalism Ended?" If Trump's tariff strategy is fully implemented, it raises the probability that it has.
Joseph G. Carson
AuthorMore in Author Profile »Joseph G. Carson, Former Director of Global Economic Research, Alliance Bernstein. Joseph G. Carson joined Alliance Bernstein in 2001. He oversaw the Economic Analysis team for Alliance Bernstein Fixed Income and has primary responsibility for the economic and interest-rate analysis of the US. Previously, Carson was chief economist of the Americas for UBS Warburg, where he was primarily responsible for forecasting the US economy and interest rates. From 1996 to 1999, he was chief US economist at Deutsche Bank. While there, Carson was named to the Institutional Investor All-Star Team for Fixed Income and ranked as one of Best Analysts and Economists by The Global Investor Fixed Income Survey. He began his professional career in 1977 as a staff economist for the chief economist’s office in the US Department of Commerce, where he was designated the department’s representative at the Council on Wage and Price Stability during President Carter’s voluntary wage and price guidelines program. In 1979, Carson joined General Motors as an analyst. He held a variety of roles at GM, including chief forecaster for North America and chief analyst in charge of production recommendations for the Truck Group. From 1981 to 1986, Carson served as vice president and senior economist for the Capital Markets Economics Group at Merrill Lynch. In 1986, he joined Chemical Bank; he later became its chief economist. From 1992 to 1996, Carson served as chief economist at Dean Witter, where he sat on the investment-policy and stock-selection committees. He received his BA and MA from Youngstown State University and did his PhD coursework at George Washington University. Honorary Doctorate Degree, Business Administration Youngstown State University 2016. Location: New York.
Global