How Could Trump Tariffs Double America’s Trade Losses

posted on 18 September 2018

Trump's Tariffs Could Double America's Trade Losses

Written by Dan Steinbock, Difference Group

Trump tariffs are based on flawed doctrines, which could penalize the US as much as its current trade deficits.

>Click to view full size cartoon at source.

trade.war.cannon


Please share this article - Go to very top of page, right hand side, for social media buttons.


Over a week ago, President Trump threatened to impose tariffs on $267 billion in Chinese goods, on top of the additional $200 billion that he said would likely be hit with import taxes in a matter of days. That has started this week.

If the tariff stakes will increase up to $500 billion, it could penalize Chinese GDP by 1%, but the US GDP, which is relatively more vulnerable, would suffer a net impact of 2% of GDP. In dollar terms, the consequent tariff damage could prove even higher than the current U.S. trade deficit with China and thus double the damage.


Trump’s tariffs are a misguided solution to a wrong problem.


The Trump administration‘s trade doctrine makes little sense in the 21st century.

“Made in China" does not capture value-added

In the pre-1914 era and during the protectionist interwar period, global integration plunged. As major corporations competed largely in home markets, their value activities were mainly domestic. Following World War II, the US-led Bretton Woods system ensured a greater degree of internationalization - including systemic US trade deficits since 1971, decades before deficits with China.

Meanwhile, US multinational companies have cut costs through offshoring as large chunks of productive capacity has been transferred to emerging markets since the 1980s, especially in Asia. So today the “eco-systems" of US multinationals are increasingly global.


Bretton Woods system ensured ... systemic US trade deficits since 1971


Here’s Trump’s dilemma in a nutshell: While tariff wars were typical to the era of domestic competition a century ago, they do not work in a more global era. Even “made in China" products feature diverse value-added inputs by multinational companies producing in, exporting from and selling in China.

Since iPhone alone accounts for some $16 billion of the U.S. trade deficit with China, let’s use it as an example. According to data (IHS Markit and Reuters), the initial sale price of Apple’s iPhone X (64BG) was $999. The Trump administration’s tariffs are based on the idea that since this smart phone is made in China, all value-added is captured in China and thus it must be penalized by heavy tariffs.


tariff wars ... do not work in a more global era


The breakdown of the iPhone X costs comprises both manufacturing costs ($378.25) and value shared between distributors and Apple ($620.75), which accounts for almost two-thirds of total costs. Another fourth of the total consists of various components made in South Korea, Japan, the US, UK, Switzerland, and Singapore.

China’s key contribution is in the basic manufacturing costs ($8) plus battery packs ($6), which is less than 4 percent of the manufacturing cost and 1.4 percent of the total cost of iPhone X (

Figure).

steinbock.iphone.sourcing

Is the iPhoneX an exception? Hardly. Before the fall of Nokia, Europe captured 51% of the value-added of the Nokia N95 smartphone, even when it was “Made in China," because the final assembly (read: China) involved 2% of the overall value-added.

Obviously, the share of Chinese value-added differs by industries and companies, yet it tends be very low in the case of multinational companies operating in China. The same goes for such companies operating in India or other emerging markets.


the share of Chinese value-added ... tends be very low in the case of multinational companies operating in China.


That's precisely why the government seeks China’s rapid transition from exports and investment toward innovation and consumption. After all, like Apple and Nokia, Chinese industry giants - from Huawei and Xiaomi to Oppo and Vivo - capture far more of the value-added in China. As Vice Premier Liu He has urged, China must innovate if it wants to be a world leader in science and technology.

America’s true dilemma

There is one critical difference, however. Through taxation, Nokia’s success benefited Finnish taxpayers and its European investors. In contrast, Apple’s success does not necessarily accrue to American taxpayers because many US multinationals, unlike their European counterparts rely on creative tax accounting or tax havens.

Theoretically, Apple should be the largest taxpayer in the world and pay $38 billion to the US Treasury in taxes brought home from overseas and “create" 20,000 new jobs. But as Fortune has reported, that’s all spin.

Reportedly, Apple plans to collect a huge windfall from the GOP’s corporate tax handout. Currently it holds about $252 billion - more than 90% of its total cash - in profits offshore, where it can avoid paying US taxes.


many US multinationals ... rely on creative tax accounting or tax havens.


Before Trump’s tax code overhaul, Apple would have paid $79 billion in taxes if it had brought the money home. But it didn’t. Instead, it let the cash sit offshore for years. So its offshore profits will be taxed at a one-time, 15.5% repatriation rate. All other corporate profits will be taxed at 21% (down from a previous rate of 35%).

In the postwar era, the old adage was “What’s good for General Motors is good for America." What Apple and many other US multinationals are doing today may not be illegal, but it is part of a broader problem associated with America’s decline.

Here’s the bottom line: Chinese share of 2%+ of the value-added pie is not the problem. Trump’s tariffs are a misguided solution to a wrong problem.

The real question is why US companies’ lucrative profits yield so few benefits to ordinary Americans but great benefits to few corporate insiders.


This article was adapted from a version published by China Daily 12 September 2018.


>

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments

Click here for Historical Opinion Post Listing

Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted. You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.


Source : http://econintersect.com/pages/opinion/opinion.php?post=201809182315

Trump's Tariffs Could Double America's Trade Losses
Trump's steel tariffs create big profits but few new jobs
Trump’s big 2020 problem: The economy could be in recession
Trump Still Determined to Slap New Tariffs on Auto Imports
Here's How Many Jobs America Could Lose Because of the Trump Tariffs
Tariffs could double US' trade losses
Editorial: Iowa State analysis makes clear the trade wars' damage to ag producers
Trade rules are deeply flawed but Trump’s tariff fixation is hurting America and the rest of the world
How Trump Tariffs Could Double America’s Trade Losses
The Finance 202: Trump unlikely to back off tariffs despite less friendly House