1/10
SCMP: "Kenya has reached a preliminary trade deal with China for duty-free exports of key products including coffee, tea and cut flowers – a major step towards narrowing the East African nation’s long-standing trade gap with Beijing."
via @scmpnewssc.mp/gg0zg?utm_sour…
2/10
This kind of incrementalist thinking is one of the reasons why global trade is so unbalanced and so poorly understood. China does not run a trade surplus with Kenya because of tariffs on coffee, tea and cut flowers.
3/10
It runs a massive trade surplus with the world because of equally-massive domestic imbalances. Reducing tariffs on Kenyan coffee, tea and cut flowers will have almost no effect at all on China's domestic imbalances, and so no affect on China's need for a trade surplus.
4/10
So how will this affect Kenya's historic trade deficit?
It won't. The deficit will be the same as always. Trade does not adjust incrementally. It can only adjust systemically. This trade agreement might shift exports and imports around a bit, but it won't do more than that.
5/10
But does it matter if Kenya runs a deficit?
Not at all. What matters is whether that deficit is balanced by higher Kenyan investment or by higher Kenyan consumption. This, in turn, is likely to depend on Kenya's openness to capital flows and on the nature of these flows.
6/10
If it is the former, Kenya's deficit will generate the growth needed to service the foreign investment that is financing the deficit. If the latter, Kenya will only be able to service foreign investment by squeezing future consumption, i.e. squeezing the workers.
7/10
If I were advising the Kenyan government, I'd argue that the issue isn't whether deficits, or trade with China, are good or bad. The issue is what kind of economy do Kenyans want to have.
8/10
Because Kenya has a relatively open capital account, the risk is that foreign trade, especially trade with countries that exert control over their external accounts, will drive Kenya's external imbalances which, in turn, will determine Kenya's internal imbalances.
9/10
In a world in which many major economies exert significant control over their external accounts, those that don't must end up adjusting in ways that are needed to accommodate the trade and industrial policies of those that do.
10/10
Free trade (which requires free capital flows) only enhances growth across the board when all major economies practice it. If many major economies don't, it is in Kenya's best interests not to allow its economy to become part of their adjustment process.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/5 That is exactly how it should be. Tariffs are effectively a tax on consumption and a subsidy to production (of tariffed goods). They work by transferring income from households (net importers) to producers of tradable goods.
3/5 The idea that Trump's tariffs would be paid for by foreigners was always nonsense. If they were, as I have often pointed out, they would have little to no impact on trade flows or on American deindustrialization.
1/7 My latest piece was written for friends who are EU policymakers or advisors. In it I argue that there is a difference between an inefficient manufacturing sector and a globally uncompetitive manufacturing sector. We shouldn't conflate the two. engelsbergideas.com/notebook/europ…
2/7 A country's manufacturing sector is not globally uncompetitive because it is inefficient, but rather because its wages are higher relative to productivity than those of its trade partners.
Efficiency is about how effectively an economy uses resources to create value.
3/7 Global competitiveness, by contrast, depends largely on how income is distributed within an economy.
This leaves the EU with two options if it wants to prevent domestic deindustrialization.
1/4 Very interesting and timely paper. The authors find that "industrial policies lead to trade surpluses if the government pursues an unbalanced policy mix, such that domestic demand does not rise as much as supply. These surpluses are absorbed by the rest of the world, which...
2/4 in response runs trade deficits. Absent policy interventions, trade deficits reduce the competitiveness of the domestic tradable sector, stifling innovation and productivity growth. Innovation policies can help the rest of the world to mitigate these negative spillovers."
3/4 In other words countries whose trade surpluses are caused by manufacturing subsidies (paid for by households) force their trade partners to absorb negative spillovers in the form of trade deficits that undermine their manufacturing competitiveness. bw.bse.eu/wp-content/upl…
1/6 According to Greg Ip, in the US economy today, "rewards are going disproportionately toward capital instead of labor. Profits have soared since the pandemic. The result: Capital is triumphant, while the average worker ekes out marginal gains." wsj.com/economy/jobs/c…
2/6 And as Marriner Eccles, FDR's Fed chairman, explained in the 1930s, this creates a dangerous illusion. The extent of business profits depends almost wholly on the purchasing power of ordinary people, which in turn depends on wages.
3/6 In a rapidly-growing developing economy, with huge unmet investment needs, it may be possible (even necessary) for profits to rise faster than wages because the resulting rise in saving can be deployed to productive investment.
1/5 Reuters: "The EU should consider either an unprecedented 30% across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods or a 30% depreciation of the euro against the renminbi to counter a flood of cheap imports, a French government strategy report said on Monday." reuters.com/world/china/fr…
2/5 I think it's only a question of time before the EU will intervene in its external account to protect its manufacturing sector, just as China has done for decades and the US is increasingly trying to do. It can implement all the reforms that have been proposed to improve...
3/5 the efficiency of its manufacturing, but while these reforms may indeed do just that, they won't improve Europe's competitive position.
This may sound counterintuitive at first, but I have a piece coming out soon in Engelsberg Ideas explaining why.
1/11
SCMP: "China’s potential growth rate could fall to about 2.5 per cent in the coming years unless action is taken, prominent Chinese economist Zhou Tianyong has warned." sc.mp/itwrt?utm_sour…
2/11
“Without a strong turnaround in total factor productivity and a meaningful expansion in household consumption, it will be difficult for China’s economic growth to reach 4 per cent or higher,” he added.
3/11
A 2-3% growth rate is becoming an increasingly popular reference growth rate for Chinese analysts. I'd argue that over the past several years, 2-3% has actually been the upper limit of growth once we strip out the "positive" impact of not recognizing bad investment.