The real challenge is for the government to explicitly recognize that without a strong relationship with its private sector, its hopes of transforming the economy into a high-tech one capable of generating more productivity and employment growth are unrealistic. It needs to back this recognition up with concrete measures to support the private sector, including financial-sector liberalization that will help direct more resources to private businesses rather than state-owned ones. Transparency about information and about its policymaking process will help the government a lot more.
As long as the current regime prioritizes central command and control over growth and job creation, it’s unclear whether growth can be restored. All signs point to the operation of a financial accelerator in reverse, which although not leading to a catacylismic collapse (see Nick Lardy’s points), will ensure difficult economic times ahead (indeed more difficult than indicated by official statistics, as discussed in this post).
Figure 1: Year-on-Year Chinese GDP growth (blue), and growth implied by China CAT (red), IMF WEO July forecast (sky blue square). ECRI defined peak-to-trough recession dates shaded gray. Source: NBS, personal communication, IMF WEO July update, ECRI and author’s calculations.
Personally, given my observations regarding the current leader’s behavior, I am skeptical that a tradeoff in favor of more growth and economic liberalization is in the offing. However, the history of pragmatism in earlier regimes gives one slight hope.
Jaimie Galbraith: “China in decline? New US narrative is geared towards 2024 election
– The White House and American news media are wringing their hands over China’s economic slowdown, which is construed as posing a threat
-The argument that China should focus on consumption instead of investment is as fallacious now as it was 30 years ago, and serves to bolster a Western sense of superiority”
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3231483/china-decline-new-us-narrative-geared-towards-2024-election
Prasad’s point that China’s leadership “needs to back this recognition up with concrete measures to support the private sector, including financial-sector liberalization that will help direct more resources to private businesses rather than state-owned ones” is exactly the ideological pitch that one would expect from a University of Chicago economist and reflects the typical neoliberal narrative trumpeted by the NY Times.
Was their point to your latest chirping? Wait – you never make a coherent point. Never mind. Hey Jonny boy – can’t wait for your next dishonest attempt to smear Zelensky. Get busy troll.
Johnny, who knows nothing about economics, picks a “narrative” that suits him. What he fails to do is back up his preference with…well, with anything. He just links to something that he thinks will disrupt the conversation – sometimes he links to articles that contradict his own position. That’s just Johnny.
What’s with the “narrative” business from Johnny lately? It’s like his word-of-the-day app tossed out “narrative” and now he wants to use it a bunch of times.
Another reason to put “narrative” on repeat is to devalue facts; a sort of post-modern disdain for testable reality. Johnny doesn’t do well with facts, but he is pure hell with rhetorical trickery. So Johnny peddles his narrative about narratives, always blathering, repeating and repeating and repeating the same debunked points, right out of the propaganda handbook.
I lost track. Am I your “doppelgänger” or is it the other way around?
I got the sense that Jonny thinks state owned = investment whereas privately owned = consumption. I guess Jonny boy does not get that there are corporations that are majority owned by the government. Maybe Putin has not let little Jonny boy know how much of Gazprom he owns.
If all that matters is finding a link to an article that supports one’s point of view (or in Johnny’s case, one he thinks supports his view), well that’s easy. The Soth China Morning Post agrees with Prasad:
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3232658/why-china-reluctant-launch-massive-economic-bailout
The gist is that China’s economy needs de-risking AND stimulus. Not impossible, but Xi has limited the tools available – see Prasad’s article – so pretty hard to do.
There is a big difference between your links and those of Jonny boy. Jonny boy is willing to cite any clown or serial liar as his gurus. I check the credentials for the person who wrote the article you linked to:
https://econ.fudan.edu.cn/__local/A/66/C0/D860F954C7B3FA5B147EBB710CD_1E4C6D1B_44649.pdf
Professor Zhang is one of the leading economists in China who publishes widely.
Recent academic contributions have been to Structural Change and Economic
Dynamics, The World Economy, China Economic Review, Economic Modelling,
Economic Systems, the Journal of Asian Economics, the Journal of the Asia Pacific
Economy, the Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, and the East Asian
Review.
Over the past 30 years he has authored or edited numerous books including
Economic Transition with Chinese Characteristics: Thirty Years of Reform and
Opening Up (McGill-Queen University Press, 2008), Transformation of the Chinese
Enterprises (Cengage Learning, 2009), Unfinished Reforms of the Chinese Economy
(World Scientific Publishing Ltd., 2013), and End of Hyper Growth In China?(Palgrave
Macmillan, 2016).
He has been on the editorial board of several academic journals including Economic
Systems, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, East Asia Policy, Journal of Pro-Poor
Economics, China Social Sciences Review, China Economic Quarterly, China Economic
Journal, China: An International Journal, and editor-in-chief of Fudan Economic
Papers.
In January 2018, he was rewarded the Bergson Prize by the American Association for
Comparative Economic Studies(ACES) for his paper published in Comparative
Economic Studies in 2015. In 2015, he was awarded the Prize of China Economics
Innovation.
Since 1997 he has been resident as visiting scholar to London School of Economics,
SOAS, University of London, University of Aarhus, Tokyo Metropolitan University,
Harvard University, Yale University, Kyungpook National University in Korea, The
Queens’ University, and the World Institute for Development Economics Research of
the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER).
Professor Zhang is also a respected commentator on the Chinese economy, and is
writing regularly to Project Syndicate and Financial Times Chinese version. His views
on the Chinese economy have been widely cited by mass media, including Wall
Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, South China Morning Post. He has
also been frequently interviewed by TVs such as CNN, BBC, KBS, PBS, and so on.
Professor Zhang is a seasoned speaker who shares with his audience in-depth
analysis on the Chinese economy. He speaks fluent English and has addressed to
Wilton Park Conference, St. Gallen Symposium, Mizuhu Forum, Asia Casa, Forbes
Forum, Global Financial Forum, J-China Forum, The Danish Top Executive Business
Summit, Shanghai Forum, The Asian Leadership Conference, etc.
He is currently the Dean of School of Economics at Fudan University, and Director of
the China Center for Economic Studies.
“While China’s leaders are certainly aware of the ongoing economic slowdown, they may be estimating that the risk of a bailout is worse than the risk of inaction. Or perhaps they have more confidence in the domestic economy’s resilience against a global recession and believe that it will recover quickly on its own.”
So Xi is taking the David Cameron approach to the Great Recession. Simon Wren Lewis – who knows the UK macroeconomy as well as anyone – blasted Cameron’s fiscal austerity as it prolonged the output gap for years and drastically lowered real wages.
Of course our village idiot JohnH remained as Cameron’s chief cheerleader. Why should we expect this Know Nothing to remotely get the current Chinese economy?
It is a shame that your highlight some of the weaker discussions from Jamie Galbraith. I’m not going through this gibberish point by point but I will note this paragraph:
Goodman cites MIT economist Yasheng Huang, who notes that exports plus imports in China total 40 per cent of gross domestic product, much of which comprises final assembly and re-exports of imported components. But while Huang appears to have left Goodman with the impression that reducing this “pass-through” trade would have a big effect, the fact is that the effect would be quite small, since imports are a subtraction from GDP. China is losing merely the value-added, a fraction of the overall product value.
China does have a lot of pass-through trade. Think Foxconn and iPhones. China is also making more of the components than it used to aka reducing this “pass-through” trade. If Jamie thinks this is losing value-added then he is dumber than even you are.
BTW – the younger Galbraith’s “pass-through trade” is an odd way of describing what people in the know refer to processing trade. And yea this is a big deal in China:
https://www.globalior.com/china-processing-trade/#:~:text=What%20is%20processing%20trade%20in%20China%3F%20It%20refers,China%E2%80%99s%20export%20trading%20activity%20consists%20of%20processing%20trade.
But pardon the interruption as this is WAY over little Jonny boy’s excuse for a brain.
A more recent discussion on processing trade:
https://ecipe.org/publications/trade-and-global-supply-chains-resilient-gvc-2-0-approach/
Not that little Jonny boy will bother to read this.
Jonny boy thinks these are the same issue:
(1) “The argument that China should focus on consumption instead of investment is as fallacious now as it was 30 years ago”
(2) “China’s leadership needs to back this recognition up with concrete measures to support the private sector, including financial-sector liberalization that will help direct more resources to private businesses rather than state-owned ones”
Now anyone with an IQ above single digits would see these as different issues. But Jonny boy’s IQ level is around 5 or 6.
Wait!!! In comments to the prior post, Johnny was all “how can you question the NYT’s “narrative” about Russia’s war in Ukraine, but now he is all critical of ”
the typical neoliberal narrative trumpeted by the NY Times.” So the NYT is unassailable when it serves Johnny’s pro-Russia agenda, but a stooge for neo-liberals when it doesn’t.
As I recall, Noneconomist called Johnny in this slippery behavior in comments to the prior post, and Johnny was to cowardly to respond:
“JohnH is the same JohnH who has repeatedly warned us not accept much of anything in US or European corporate media. He’s on record numerous times here denying reports of Russian atrocities reported by the same media he now wholeheartedly embraces. Surprise.”
Johnny, your Russian paymasters aren’t getting their money’s worth, even if they pay you in rubles. Everybody has your number.
Ah but Jonny boy did find some tabloid trash that told us that Zelensky bought an expensive mansion in Egypt. Never mind it was a lie. Tucker Carlson will feature this smear on his show tonight.
The problem is that high tech and innovation economies are driven by somewhat selfish/selfabsorbed individualism (just look at Musk). You have to focus on making those people think they can work through and benefit from making an idea into a breakthrough “product”, that can deliver them fame and riches. They have to believe that there is a fair system for financing good ideas, protecting the commercial aspects of them, and allowing the inventor/entrepreneur to harvest and keep the benefits. If inventors think that corruption or the big state will block them from that process of “fabulous” success, they will seek another environment. The US has harvested large numbers of inventors from China, India and even Europe because those inventors (whether true or not) were convinced they had a better chance of success (the American dream) here than in their home country. If China want to compete with US they have to create an attractive environment for entrepreneurs at all stages. Unfortunately, the reflexes of authoritarians like Xi is to take control and create “linear” order. Furthermore dictators tend to get rid of rather than listen to advisors who recognize when they are on the wrong track. So they get trapped in a destructive disinformation bubble.
Two observations –
* There has long been an expectation that China’s debt burden and associated mal-investment would lead to trouble. The Evergrand and Country Garden episodes confirm that poor allocation of credit has become a drag. That said, it is difficult to tease apart cyclical and secular changes in the short run. China’s failure to thrive since lifting Covid restrictions may reflect secular problems, but it’s still early days.
I will not be surprised if China’s actual growth path, as opposed to the growth path reported in official statistics, is permanently slower. But only time will tell.
* Prasad’s view is based in conventional economics; market-determined resource allocation is more efficient than command-based allocation. Some commenters here are quite certain they know better, that the wonders of heterodoxy or the wisdom and bravery of the Chinese people (a rather racist premise) means nothing can go wrong. Well, let’s take their confidence in rainbows and confetti seriously. Let’s put economic arguments aside and look at the data.
There was a clear break in China’s real GDP growth after 2010:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=18bDL
Xi came to power in 2012-2013. His reign is coincident with the slowdown in Chinese growth. So whether you accept the conventional view or not, something has lowered China’s growth path during Xi’s tenure.
One feature of Chinese governance since Mao left power is that there has been a regular change of leadership. Aspiring leaders had to make their pitch, and if selected to lead, had a limited period to show results. Course adjustments were possible at regular intervals. Xi has changed that. He has made himself dictator-for-life. Poor performance doesn’t necessarily lead to a change in course because the mechanism for making change has been eliminated.
So, while conventional economic thinking offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for China’s slower growth trend, go ahead and ignore that explanation if you wish. What is perfectly obvious is that no system of thought, orthodox or heterodox, can guide a return to better growth in China unless Xi allows someone else to guide the economy.
This is, I suspect, why Menzie is skeptical that China will choose growth over centralized control. The “history of pragmatism in earlier regimes” is exactly what has been lost with Xi’s break with the tradition of regular change in leadership.
Mr. Foxconn is running for President in Taiwan. Terry Guo’s company is among China’s largest exporters and employers, but China calls him a separatist. Maybe China can improve its economic prospects by turning against Guo as it has against a number of other tech-sector leaders.
The Federal trial on the 1/6/2021 et al. crimes set for March 2024 and not April 2026. Of course Trump’s lawyers proved to be dumber than one could ever imagine:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/not-a-great-statement-legal-experts-say-trump-lawyer-just-destroyed-his-argument-to-delay-trial/ar-AA1fTck0?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=f871804e9358440299d3eec5b142f0ad&ei=8
Trump attorney Alina Habba claimed that the former president will not need any preparation ahead of his numerous overlapping trials because he is “incredibly intelligent” unlike the “average person.” Habba told Fox News host Shannon Bream that “if this was a normal person… I could understand the concern” but Trump is “incredibly intelligent and he knows the ropes.” She questioned, “What is he going to have to be prepped for? The truth? You don’t have to prep much when you’ve done nothing wrong.”
Some legal experts cautioned that Habba undercut Trump’s argument that he needed extensive time to prepare for his trials. “Trump’s lawyer tells FOX her client ‘knows all the facts’ and doesn’t need time to prep for the coup trial — while his other lawyer says he needs till April 2026 because it’s so complex,” noted longtime Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe. “Wow,” marveled attorney George Conway, writing that Habba “really did” destroy Trump’s lawyers’ argument. “Not a great statement to make just prior to DC Judge anticipated ruling tomorrow on DC trial date,” warned former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. “The more his lawyers speak for political purposes, the more they harm/impact the legal case,” tweeted national security attorney Mark Zaid.
Trump doesn’t need any time to prepare for the trial – its his lawyers that may need some time. He simply will sit there and look grumpy while the professionals (lawyers) argue in his favor and cross examine the witnesses. He is not going to testify because that would be insane – and when his own ass(ets) is at stake he doesn’t do insane things.
Well RUDY needs time to off the alcohol!
When it comes to products and services (or as we call it “the economy”) it is fairly simple. Someone get to produce, someone get to profit and someone get to enjoy the product/service. China made the huge mistake of thinking that those who get to produce are the “winners”.
Oh dear – JohnH is going to hate the latest news from Ukraine:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/as-ukraine-s-counteroffensive-gains-momentum-russia-is-deploying-some-of-its-last-good-reserves/ar-AA1fR8e2?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a31944229b164139bc1bffdab253029b&ei=10
Momentum, Russia Is Deploying Some Of Its Last Good Reserves
The Kremlin is rushing reinforcements to southern Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Oblast. It’s a desperate bid to prevent a major Ukrainian breakthrough along a critical axis.
The reinforcements are from the 76th Guards Air Assault Division, which is “arguably Russia’s best division and is relatively fresh,” according to Rob Lee, an analyst with the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. The division most recently went on the attack early this year around Kreminna, where the Russians still are sustaining a limited offensive. That the Russians are redeploying the 76th GAAD speaks to the growing momentum of the Ukrainians’ 2023 counteroffensive, which kicked off with simultaneous armored assaults along several axes in southern and eastern Ukraine. In just the last couple of weeks, the Ukrainian army and independent air-assault force have liberated Robotyne in Zaporizhzhia, while the Ukrainian marine corps has ejected Russian troops from Urozhaine, 60 miles east of Robotyne in the Mokri Yaly River Valley.
I guess this is why Jonny boy was peddling that tabloid trash that falsely claimed Zelensky bought an expensive mansion in Egypt.
it is getting confusing.
ukraine captured ukhrozhaine about 10 august.
that hamlet is 50 60 km from the most recent headline capture robotyne.
ukhrozine is on an axis toward Mariupol, robotyne an axis to meriopol.
robotyne is on the famous if you follow the maps and reports of huge ukraine loses, the famed orikhiv axis.
the headline wins beg a review of vaunted Russian defensive bands, think Kursk and German’s Siegfried line.
neither gain is up to russian prepared defense lines,
but who can trust maps these days?
if johnnie boy read maps….
By the way, Evergrande shares have dumped upon resuming trading adter a 17-month hiatus:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/28/china-evergrande-shares-plunge-as-trading-resumes-trade-after-17-months.html
The BBC is suggesting that a complete collapse of Evergrande could have dire consequences for the real economy. China has had those 17 months, to deal with econiomic adn financial spill-over from Evergrande. If the risk hasn’t been contained, it’s either lack of capacity or lack of understanding.
Ignatius: “ Pentagon officials have urged their Ukrainian counterparts to prioritize better and concentrate their forces…
American commanders have long believed that the Ukrainians waste artillery fire…
Pentagon officials have also urged Ukraine to rely less on drones for battlefield awareness…
With Ukrainian forces stymied on the ground…”
Does this sound like the back slapping of a winning team…or the grousing and finger pointing of one that’s not winning? Of course, Ducky an piggly think that grousing can only come from people who parrot Russian talking points—people like American commanders and Pentagon officials!
The upshot? “As Biden administration officials assess Ukraine’s slow progress in this summer’s counteroffensive, they have been candidly discussing with Kyiv what they see as “lessons learned.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/27/ukraine-counteroffensive-russia-us-support-holds/
Yeah, it’s always a good idea to take advice from folks who never bothered to learn the lessons of the pointless, futile, and wasteful wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. [sarcasm]
More dishonest chirping. Dude – you are Putin’s pet poodle. Total waste of time.
This pointless, futile, wasteful war could end tomorrow. Invading Russian forces withdraw, ceasefire declared. No more (fake) handwringing required.
Haven’t heard you make that suggestion. That’s why everyone here knows your insincerity when you babble about pointless, futile, wasteful wars.
Your man of the people act wore thin long ago. You’re solidly on the side of the billionaire Kremlin Kleptocrat and his desire to Re-establish the old USSR.
Meanwhile, let those anti war crocodile tears flow. They’re good for a laugh. Go do that voodoo that you believe you do so well.
“Does this sound like the back slapping of a winning team…or the grousing and finger pointing of one that’s not winning?”
no. this sounds like constructive criticism. this is how improvements are made on the battlefield. only a partisan hack would interpret this as grousing and finger pointing. why do you hate Ukraine so much?
and Johnny, if you are so against “pointless, futile, and wasteful wars” so much, why the continued support of Russia and the putin regime, who are conducting just such an immoral war?
Well, China is at the crossroads. As I have said, it’s like Harry Potter, ‘Neither can live while the other survives’. Xi wants to centralize property rights in his hands, and he has made substantial headway in that regard. By contrast, an increasingly sophisticated and complex China needs property rights granted by law, that is, vested in the body public. Put another way, China needs democracy to move forward. It’s coming down to crunch time.
So, there are three and one-half scenarios for China:
1. Withdraw from the world. This has been the preference of China’s leadership for the past 4,000 years, so it’s clearly the default option. Doing that with a middle class country though, that’s no mean feat.
2. The Galtieri Gambit
Try to conquer Taiwan to bolster fading popularity. Fail. Be deposed, with democracy arising as a result.
2.5 The Galtieri Gambit + World War III
An attempt to conquer Taiwan leads to uncontrolled escalation. See “War, Ukraine”
3. Xi ousted and democracy installed
As I have noted, this is pro forma outcome between in the 2024-2026 time frame. Feels like Xi’s control is too tight for that, though.
Not a lot a pretty outcomes to pick from.
“2.5 The Galtieri Gambit + World War III
An attempt to conquer Taiwan leads to uncontrolled escalation. See “War, Ukraine”
It does seem some corrupt version of ChatGPT is calling itself little Stevie boy. I’m sorry but this comment of his is nothing more than the usual worthless gibberish.
This is a very short article or very short blog post, but it’s be very perceptive, and possibly broadening the “political scope” (for lack of words to better describe the article):
https://kottke.org/23/08/focus-on-the-stakes-not-the-odds
Yes three times.
To the extent political journalism matters, it matters because it informs voters. If voters are informed about horseracie aspects of politics, they are more likely to vote for whoever appears to be winning. If they are u formed of the likely consequences, then just maybe, they respond to consequences.
But horserace reporting sells, so why bother with the important stuff.
Mo,
Thanks for a bit of sense,
interrupting the roasting of johnnie h!
Jay Rosen in Oz: Horse-Race Journalism an “International Phenom”
Don’t tell us who’s going to win our vote, help us decide whom to vote for
He wrote that 13 years ago. Good advice then. Better advice now.
I’m a bit surprised at the notion that because China’s economy has not done as well in 2010-23 as it did in previous year is because as of March 2018 (State) or October 2022 (Party) – pick your favorite starting point – Xi Jinping has violated the two-terms-and-out tradition.
Not a lot of explanation of what happened in 2010-18 (-22) in that sort of thinking, is there? So maybe (just maybe) there’s something amiss in the actual economy, as opposed to being wholly in the political succession system.
Don’t get me wrong. Xi has royally screwed up one of the most important reforms of the Deng Era: the regular, downright boring, change in leadership. But, let’s not attribute broad economic developments to that alone.
But, we keep hearing wild stories about how history is per-determined. I mean, it’s almost as ridiculous as saying that because an emperor or two pulled back from exploration centuries ago, therefore TODAY China’s default reaction to hardship is to withdraw into its shell.
Or, as silly as suggesting that an attempt to invade Taiwan would lead to a democratic upsurge.
Never mind the utterly idiotic fantasy that Xi Jinping’s colleagues – the people with the most at stake in his success – are about to overthrow him … in favor of democracy!
Fairy tales.
“I’m a bit surprised at the notion that because China’s economy has not done as well in 2010-23 as it did in previous year is because as of March 2018 (State) or October 2022 (Party) – pick your favorite starting point – Xi Jinping has violated the two-terms-and-out tradition.”
I think this is a response to Kopits, but it could be a response to me. So, if this is a response to my point about Xi making himself dictator-for-life, my point was not that suspending the succession tradition caused economic trouble, but that it makes policy reform hard. If Xi were good at economic policy, course correction might not be needed. Since Xi is apparently not good at economic policy, his long tenure is bad for China’s economy.
“Predetermined”
Welcome to Kopits’ Bizarro World. It’s his theater production, and we’re all just laughing behind the side curtain. Professor Rosser thought of him as a real genius on foreign policy and oil. Do I need to explain more??
I recall that recently my comment regarding China’s “planned economy” was roundly ridiculed and denied by commenters her… despite the fact that around 40% of the economy is a result of state-owned/controlled activity. Now I read, As long as the current regime prioritizes central command and control over growth and job creation, it’s unclear whether growth can be restored.
So it’s a command economy, but just not planned. Got it.
“the fact that around 40% of the economy is a result of state-owned/controlled activity.”
Where did you get this BS? Hint little Brucie – Tucker Carlson is a liar. Oh wait – you are a liar too. Carry on!
“I recall that recently my comment regarding China’s “planned economy” was roundly ridiculed”
Poor little Brucie – he just cannot get away with writing stupid right wing BS without those meanies ridiculing his BS.
Hey Brucie – if you don’t want to be ridiculed then stop writing such garbage. And dude – grown up.
Mr Hall,
Please tell us that you really do recognize the difference between a planned economy and a command economy.
Distinction without a difference;
From the internet:
What Are the Examples of a Planned Economy?
Several countries with authoritative Governments follow a planned economic system; however, most of these countries have now opened up to private sectors.
Former Soviet and Communist nations were primarily planned economies, all of which have now eventually become mixed economies.
Some planned economy examples include:
North Korea
China
Laos
Cuba
Vietnam
https://navi.com/blog/planned-economy/
Examples of a Command Economy
USSR
China
Laos
North Korea
Cuba
Vietnam
https://helpfulprofessor.com/command-economy-examples/
Same list.
Brucie may need a few days before replying as Kelly Anne Conway is not returning his emails.
I doubt anybody really paid much attention to what your comment might have been, bruce.
Menzie – this comment is tangential to today’s post but related in the sense of “what is the U.S. economic policy?” I have been trying to discern the GOP economic policy and it seems to be cut Social Security and make older adults work till they drop dead (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mike-pence-cutting-medicare-social-security-1234684328/) to cut taxes for rich people by eliminating the IRS (https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/politics/irs-fair-tax-republicans-abolish/index.html) to create opportunities for more Trump corruption (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/22/trump-trade-tariffs/)
In contrast, it seems to me that the Biden Administration is trying to take a reasoned and sustainable path forward (here is Biden admin take on trade https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/27/biden-trade-trump/ and overall economic policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Joe_Biden_administration)
BTW – our greatest economic challenge in the coming decades will be climate change and no major GOP political leader believes it is happening and would rather consign us and our children to burn in hell and be subject to extreme weather events – https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-08-24/gop-debate-is-climate-change-real-only-one-candidate-raised-their-hand (Also kudos to Asa Hutchinson who is the only GOP candidate that acknowledges reality that Trump is a corrupt insurrectionist and climate change is real.)
The Problem with Chunese Influence Operations:
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/29/1196117574/meta-says-chinese-russian-influence-operations-are-among-the-biggest-its-taken-d
From the article:
“The fake accounts posted links to articles praising China and denigrating U.S. and European foreign policy, as well as seemingly personal comments that appear to be copied and pasted from a numbered list, resulting in hundreds of identical posts.”
Note the similarity to ltr’s behavior here. For that matter, note the similarity to Johnny’s behavior here.
I now have a legacy for all time to come. I believe I was the first to identify ltr and Johnny as bought-and-paid-for luckiest of foreign governments. Meta ain’t got nothin’ in me.
“Lackies”
ltr and Johnny are lackies. Stupid auto-correct.
Dr. Chinn noted Team Trump’s proposal to impose a 10% tariff on all imports. If anyone has this analysis from the Tax Foundation please let us know:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-s-import-tariff-proposal-would-cut-0-7-from-us-gdp-study-says/ar-AA1fTOwK?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=d7a360d02adc4906957c97dac74bc67a&ei=8
(Bloomberg) — Former President Donald Trump’s proposal to institute a 10% tariff on almost all imports would cost American consumers $300 billion a year, result in the loss of 550,000 US jobs, and cut growth by 0.7%, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. If other countries retaliate by imposing tariffs on US goods, the economic damage could be even greater. The Tax Foundation said the resulting trade war from retaliatory tariffs would further reduce growth by 0.4% and eliminate another 322,000 jobs.
We still remember the idiotic tariffs Trump instituted on raw materials like steel and aluminum. Any of our industries that used those metals were forced to increase prices of their products. So if those products competed with foreign companies, then our domestic industry were put at a disadvantage both in US and export markets by having to pay the unique Trump/US tax on their raw materials. In contrast the retaliation from other countries were specifically targeted on final products where US exporters had a small edge so the tariffs could help and make a big difference for their domestic producers.
General tariffs are much less effective than an intelligently designed industrial policy that targets a mixture of tariffs and subsidies to the benefit of domestic producers and exporters. Biden has shown some impressive capabilities for that – Trump is a clown car parade.
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/donald-trump-10-percent-tariff/
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tariffs-trump-trade-war/
Asia Times has a piece arguing that a collapse in U.S demand, not reshoring, accounts for the drop in Pacific Rim exports:
https://asiatimes.com/2023/08/us-consumer-bust-shrinks-world-trade/
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but this doesn’t look like a great match to me:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=18dyf
Narrowing the import category doesn’t help.
A Colorado startup called Ad Fontes (meaning ‘to the sources’ in Latin), which recently raised $4.2 million in a first round of financing, believes it can help answer that question with its Media Bias Chart, which released a major data update earlier in the month.
The chart rates publications on two separate criteria, reliability and bias. On one axis, reliability is charted from 0 to 64 with anything over 40 coming in as very reliable. Publications that land somewhere between 40 and 30 are still quite reliable but include much more analysis or opinion. Anything below 24 is characterized as “Selective or Incomplete Story/Unfair Persuasion/Propaganda.”
The other axis plots how far away from zero publications veer, with zero being purely balanced coverage and -42 being “most extreme left” and 42 being “most extreme right.”
Cable News Networks
When looking at the five top cable news networks, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Newsmax, and NewsNation, CNN and NewsNation lead the pack in reliability with a 39.3 and 39.2 rating, respectively. MSNBC comes in third with a 31.5 reliability rating, while Fox has a 26 rating, and NewsMax is in “propaganda” territory with a 18.7 rating.
In terms of bias, NewsNation lands in the middle with a 2, skewing it ever-so-slightly right. CNN is next with a -10, putting it in “skews left” territory, while MSNBC has “strong left” rating of -16.8. Fox charts at “strong right” with a 17.83, while NewsMax is in “hyper-partisan right” territory with a 21.33.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/cable-news-shows-and-networks-ranked-for-bias-and-accuracy/ar-AA1fSQ1t?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7628b25cb5f84475b3a22c49a9a62949&ei=6
Some worrying BLS numbers…
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2023/08/bls-job-openings-decreased-to-88.html
I read Bill McBride’s reporting. He is not worried about these numbers. But little Stevie seems to be. OK Mr. Know Nothing – what are the worrying numbers and why would any rational person be worried.
McBride correctly writes:
‘When the blue line is above the two stacked columns, the economy is adding net jobs – when it is below the columns, the economy is losing jobs.’
And his graph shows the blue is about the two stacked columns meaning the economy is adding net jobs. So no worries if one knows what the data means and knows how to read a clear graph.
But Princeton Steve is worried because he is the world’s worst consultant who knows nothing about labor economics.
Exactly. And the graphs show that there has been extended periods where job openings were less than hires – and the economy was doing just fine (maybe not as spectacular as the Biden economy, but fine). As Bill has said many many times before, the bad news is when hires are less than the sum of quits & layoffs. So nothing to worry about in those numbers.
Peter Doocy is the Faux News White House correspondent but he acts a lot like rightwing troll Bruce Hall. His latest question was whether the Biden Administration plans to limit beer consumption to 2 a week. Maybe Peter should lay off the beer but no such plans are coming from the White House.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-bursts-into-laughter-when-asked-if-president-joe-biden-plans-to-limit-americans-beer-intake/ar-AA1fX63S?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=6cf9d34aee034d17b9ae4788a80bc544&ei=14