China update

I've been sitting on this one for a while, but it's a pertinent update to pass along given my past rants on the topic of China and the trade wars that our incompetent lawmakers insist on instigating. Per Mish Shedlock (citing Bloomberg),

China announced plans to impose anti-dumping duties on some vehicles imported from the U.S. after failing to block a U.S. tariff on Chinese tires. 

Punitive duties will be as high as 12.9 percent for autos from General Motors Co. (GM) and 8.8 percent for Chrysler Group LLC, China’s commerce ministry said today on its website. The U.S. units of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) and Daimler AG (DAI) will face duties of 2 percent and 2.7 percent respectively, it said. 

“The move shows that China is always capable of intervening politically in its markets,” said Juergen Pieper, a Frankfurt-based analyst with Bankhaus Metzler. “The automobile industry is very dependent on China for growth, and there’s doubts about the pace of future expansion.” 

The move to increase import levies comes three months after the World Trade Organization rejected China’s appeal of a ruling backing U.S. duties on tire imports.

China has already shown us that they are more than willing to call our bluff if we insist on engaging them in a trade war, and this is the start of that process. American companies and individuals will suffer greatly from any trade war, whether instituted via direct tariffs or via wrong-headed "currency manipulator" legislation.

Let me say this one more time, with emphasis--our manufacturing industry has been outsourced to China not because of their unfair labor or currency practices, but because of massive domestic inflation caused by overly accommodative monetary policy from the Fed and fiscal policy from Congress.

When commodity and real estate prices (not to mention college tuition rates and health care costs) march inexorably higher year after year, American workers have no choice but to demand higher and higher wages from their employers. Companies therefore have a choice--cave to those demands and raise their end prices to compensate, or else take the jobs elsewhere where workers are able to work for less. They've increasingly chosen the latter, which keeps core inflation statistics down but also guts our nation's manufacturing base.

While there are certainly exceptions, the majority of American companies would prefer NOT to outsource these jobs if given the choice. For a company, outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China means giving up a significant amount of control over intellectual property and quality control, while also dramatically increasing production lead times and therefore making inventory management significantly more difficult. These are NOT GOOD THINGS from a business standpoint, and businesses will therefore only do it if they feel as though it is their only choice. Increasingly, this is the feeling they receive when assessing the potential costs of hiring an entirely American labor force.

If we want to get our manufacturing base back, we need to cut the crap with our unrealistic monetary and fiscal policies. Otherwise, any trade war will have only negative impacts on our domestic economy--recession, inflation, decreased corporate profits, you name it--there is literally no good outcome if we continue to insist on engaging in trade wars with China and other nations.

The trade war has already begun--how far are we going to let it go before addressing the real problems that plague our economy?

[Bloomberg]
(h/t Mish Shedlock)

Cartoons do my job for me again

I had intended to follow up on this morning's labor participation rate post with a discussion of last night's reported "compromise" between President Obama and Congressional Republicans, and my general feelings about the plan's efficacy.

But my post this morning turned into a more prolonged rant than I'd anticipated, and I ended up incidentally hitting some of this post's intended major points in the process. So without further ado, and following in the vein of this post and this post, I present to you this cartoon from The Washington Examiner's Nate Beeler:

Yeah, that about sums up my feelings on the matter. Well done, Nate.

[Washington Examiner]
(h/t The Mess That Greenspan Made)

Is student loan debt the root of all evil?

Today I was tipped off to this fantastic infographic by Jess Bachman (who's got some terrific stuff on a variety of topics here) about the shady dealings behind federally guaranteed student loans. I highly recommend you take a look through the graphic, but here are some of the key takeaways (emphasis mine):

In 1998, Congress completely eliminated the ability to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy. The same rules apply to debt from criminal acts (you murder someone and are sued) and debt from fraud. Loans for education are the only type of loan that has this Federal 'no-escape' clause.

The harshest collection methods are reserved for student loans. Miss a few payments and you can be subject to:

- Wage garnishment without a court order

- Suspension of state professional licenses

- Garnishment of social security/disability income

- Withholding IRS tax refunds

Note that these provisions apply not only to government-provided loans, but also to loans taken out from private lenders. The graphic goes into further detail about how this scheme benefits governments (and, by extension, the schools themselves who receive government funds through direct subsidies or preferable tax treatment), but that's not my real point of contention.

I'm more worried about the impact that this forced debt slavery has on the choices that are made by our nation's best and brightest upon graduation. I know firsthand from both my undergraduate days and my MBA days the extraordinary pressure that the mountain of (non-dischargeable) student loan debt places on graduates, and the implications worry me.

I graduated Harvard with a moderate loan debt compared to many of my friends and classmates (the equivalent of about one year's tuition, including room and board), but I still felt the dread that a wall of impending loan payments creates. Multiple hundreds of dollars per month (much of it interest) represents a big chunk of any entry-level salary, automatically eliminating several career options.

This dynamic is even more pronounced at the graduate school level. I was lucky enough to have savings from my post-undergrad career (as well as significant scholarship money), and thus escaped my MBA days debt-free. But many of my classmates were not so lucky, and left town with $100k+ in debt (not to mention 2 years' lost salary) for their efforts.

There, even more so than in my undergrad days, I saw countless talented (and highly educated) people abandoning their dreams of entrepreneurship or non-traditional career paths (media & entertainment, sustainable business, etc.) in favor of more highly-paid jobs in consulting and, of course, investment banking. A full 55% of my graduating MBA class went into banking, consulting, or financial services, all of which are by their nature non-productive businesses (yes, I've heard counter-arguments as to their productivity, and no, I don't buy them).

I've been arguing for years with anyone who wants to listen (okay, mostly my wife, who happens to be a recruiter at colleges for a major national bank) that FAR too many of our best and brightest are going into these industries, rather than more productive businesses like manufacturing and technology. 55% is an insane number, especially at a school that bills its MBA program as having a "general management" focus. When you have too many highly intelligent people in too small a space, fighting for too few profits, corners are bound to be cut, and shady behavior is likely to follow. It's not that well-educated people are immoral by their nature, it's just that they have far too much to lose. A hungry animal--even a smart one--will often resort to any means necessary to get himself a meal.

Furthermore, when great profits are to be had in these industries (by legitimate means or otherwise), the incentive to work for a regulatory body like the SEC wanes. No rational college or MBA graduate would take his sack of loan debt up to Washington or New York and go to work putting his former classmates out of work or in jail--at least, not one without a seriously admirable gift for big-picture altruism.

I don't think it's too far a stretch, then, to say that the infrastructure surrounding student loan debt is at least in part to blame for the financial bubble that developed over the past 20 years, and its subsequent burst and crisis. Saddle too many intelligent people with unforgivable debt, channel them into high-paying jobs that they don't necessarily want, and undesirable outcomes are almost inevitable.

It may sound hypocritical and disingenuous for me to preach from my perch atop the ivory tower, but I really do believe that too many people are going to college, blindly taking on huge debt for the promise of future piles of cash. If young students realized (which even I didn't until now) that their debt was non-dischargeable, and that their career options would thus be limited (perhaps permanently), I firmly believe that fewer students would take those loans, and more would turn to careers of entrepreneurship and creative enterprises. This spirit of entrepreneurship is what made America's economy great to begin with, and it is a necessary development if we are ever to return to our previous position of economic power.