Greg Richards explains why Trump knows the trade war must be fought,
and better yet, can easily be won.
Why is this chart important?
It is a death sentence for America.
Although it is a single series of data, the chart is essentially in two parts, split in the year 2000. There is no manipulation to achieve this effect. This is how the data lay out, which is why this chart is so significant.
From 1968 into 2000, you see beautiful, real-world steady growth (i.e., "steady" interspersed with recessions). The red trendline is a trendline of constant percentage growth year to year (i.e., exponential). When you calculate it, it turns out to be 6% per year. This is roughly twice GDP annual growth over the same period. There is no specific significance to that 2X factor except that we would expect capital spending to grow faster than the economy as a whole, as, in fact, it did.
Why is this growth in capital spending important? Even in our increasingly service-oriented economy, it is capital spending – the stock of capital equipment – that sustains our standard of living. Healthy capital spending is critical to – really identical with – a thriving economy. This is why the flat capital spending that America has experienced since 2000 is so grave a condition.
American Thinker readers will be surprised to learn that they are now the only people in the country, aside from this author, who have seen this chart. I could not be more serious when I say that.
Economists do not think of capital spending in terms of real-world numbers. They think of it as a concept in their models that self-equilibrates. There isn't an economist from Harvard to Stanford or anywhere in between who knows this chart. Believe me: I have worked with these people. If you as a reader are in business or in academe, try me out.
The only person in public life who understands this chart is Donald Trump. I cannot say he has literally looked at it, but he understands it.
Note that we are not talking about the "creative destruction of capitalism" here. We are not talking about no longer making buggy whips. We are talking about the staples of a modern economy, many of which we no longer have the capital equipment to manufacture.
We were the only country to emerge from World War II stronger than when we went into it, and our relative strength at the end of World War II was immeasurable. It became our policy, and then our unconscious attitude, to "help other countries get back on their feet." This attitude became a permanent part of our trade policy-making, wherein we essentially opened our markets to other countries while accepting that their markets were closed to us.
The chart shows that our ability to sustain the Lord Bountiful approach to trade ended forever in 2000, although nobody in power saw it until Donald Trump came along in 2016.
It is a death sentence for America.
Although it is a single series of data, the chart is essentially in two parts, split in the year 2000. There is no manipulation to achieve this effect. This is how the data lay out, which is why this chart is so significant.
From 1968 into 2000, you see beautiful, real-world steady growth (i.e., "steady" interspersed with recessions). The red trendline is a trendline of constant percentage growth year to year (i.e., exponential). When you calculate it, it turns out to be 6% per year. This is roughly twice GDP annual growth over the same period. There is no specific significance to that 2X factor except that we would expect capital spending to grow faster than the economy as a whole, as, in fact, it did.
Why is this growth in capital spending important? Even in our increasingly service-oriented economy, it is capital spending – the stock of capital equipment – that sustains our standard of living. Healthy capital spending is critical to – really identical with – a thriving economy. This is why the flat capital spending that America has experienced since 2000 is so grave a condition.
American Thinker readers will be surprised to learn that they are now the only people in the country, aside from this author, who have seen this chart. I could not be more serious when I say that.
Economists do not think of capital spending in terms of real-world numbers. They think of it as a concept in their models that self-equilibrates. There isn't an economist from Harvard to Stanford or anywhere in between who knows this chart. Believe me: I have worked with these people. If you as a reader are in business or in academe, try me out.
The only person in public life who understands this chart is Donald Trump. I cannot say he has literally looked at it, but he understands it.
Note that we are not talking about the "creative destruction of capitalism" here. We are not talking about no longer making buggy whips. We are talking about the staples of a modern economy, many of which we no longer have the capital equipment to manufacture.
We were the only country to emerge from World War II stronger than when we went into it, and our relative strength at the end of World War II was immeasurable. It became our policy, and then our unconscious attitude, to "help other countries get back on their feet." This attitude became a permanent part of our trade policy-making, wherein we essentially opened our markets to other countries while accepting that their markets were closed to us.
The chart shows that our ability to sustain the Lord Bountiful approach to trade ended forever in 2000, although nobody in power saw it until Donald Trump came along in 2016.
If one looks at debt growth, one will actually achieve a deeper
understanding, but this will do for non-economists. The most important part of the article is this
section, which I have been trying to explain to people in multiple venues with
varying degrees of success:
Economists think mercantilism can
never work, thus Trump attacking it as practiced by China is a fool's errand or
worse. This is based on the early 19th-century Theory of Comparative
Advantage developed by David Ricardo. It states that among trading
parties, even if one party's production costs are greater in all goods than the
other party's, the first party should focus on those goods where it has a
comparative advantage – i.e., where its own cost of production is lower.
If the two countries then trade, both will improve their welfare. If,
under these conditions, a country practices mercantilism, it impoverishes
itself. This is a substantial insight.
But it depends on a key assumption: that capital is fixed. Ricardo's example was that the British should raise sheep and the French should make wine, and they should trade these goods with each other. The example was based on climate, the ultimate in fixed capital.
With capital mobile, as it is now, mercantilism works. By forcing a trading partner to move its assets, technology, know-how, intellectual property, and R&D to the mercantilist country in order to participate in its market, a country can build itself up at the expense of its trading partner. Following its accession to the WTO, China has been strip-mining the U.S. economy of high value-added industries and high-wage jobs by doing this.
But it depends on a key assumption: that capital is fixed. Ricardo's example was that the British should raise sheep and the French should make wine, and they should trade these goods with each other. The example was based on climate, the ultimate in fixed capital.
With capital mobile, as it is now, mercantilism works. By forcing a trading partner to move its assets, technology, know-how, intellectual property, and R&D to the mercantilist country in order to participate in its market, a country can build itself up at the expense of its trading partner. Following its accession to the WTO, China has been strip-mining the U.S. economy of high value-added industries and high-wage jobs by doing this.
The
USA can only benefit from a trade war. That, of course, is why everyone around
the world is freaking out. The genie is out of the bottle and it is becoming
more and more apparent to everyone that the economic foundation for the
globalist world order has not only failed, but was built on intellectual sand
from the very start.
