Sekėjai

Ieškoti šiame dienoraštyje

2023 m. rugsėjo 1 d., penktadienis

Cutting Ties With China Isn't So Easy

 

"The United States is trying to lessen its dependence on Chinese goods, but research is showing how tough it is to truly alter global supply chains.

The United States has spent the past five years pushing to reduce its reliance on China for computer chips, solar panels and various consumer imports amid growing concern over Beijing's security threats, human rights record and dominance of critical industries.

But even as policymakers and corporate executives look for ways to cut ties with China, a growing body of evidence suggests that the world's largest economies remain deeply intertwined as Chinese products make their way to America through other countries. New and forthcoming economic papers call into question whether the United States has actually lessened its reliance on China -- and what a recent reshuffling of trade relationships means for the global economy and American consumers.

Changes to global manufacturing and supply chains are still unfolding, as both punishing tariffs imposed by the administration of former President Donald J. Trump and tougher restrictions on the sale of technology to China imposed by the Biden administration play out.

The key architect of the latest restrictions -- Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary -- is meeting with top Chinese officials in Beijing and Shanghai this week, a visit that underscores the challenge facing the United States as it seeks to reduce how much it depends on China when the countries' economies share so many ties.

These reworked trade rules, along with other economic changes, have caused China's share of imports into the United States to fall as the share of imports from other low-cost countries like Vietnam and Mexico have climbed. The Biden administration has also pumped up incentives for producing semiconductors, electric cars and solar panels domestically, and manufacturing construction in the United States has been rising quickly.

But new research discussed at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's annual conference at Jackson Hole in Wyoming on Saturday found that while global trade patterns have reshuffled, American supply chains have remained very reliant on Chinese production -- just not as directly.

In their paper, the economists Laura Alfaro at Harvard Business School and Davin Chor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth wrote that China's share of U.S. imports fell to about 17 percent in 2022 after peaking at about 22 percent in 2017, as the country accounted for a smaller share of America's imports in categories like machinery, footwear and telephone sets. As that happened, places like Vietnam gained ground -- supplying the United States with more apparel and textiles -- while neighbors like Mexico began sending more car parts, glass, iron and steel.

That would seem to be a sign that the United States is lessening its reliance on China. But there's a hitch: Both Mexico and Vietnam have themselves been importing more products from China, and Chinese direct investment into those countries has surged, indicating that Chinese firms are setting up more factories there.

The trends suggest that firms may simply be moving the last steps in their lengthy supply chains out of China, and that some companies are using countries like Vietnam or Mexico as staging areas to send goods that are still partly or largely made in China into the United States.

While proponents of decoupling argue that any move away from China may be a good thing, the reshuffling appears to have other consequences. The paper finds that shifting supply chains are also associated with higher prices for goods.

A drop of five percentage points in the share of imports coming from China may have pushed prices on Vietnamese imports up 9.8 percent and Mexican imports up 3.2 percent, based on the authors' calculations. While more research is needed, the effect could be slightly contributing to consumer inflation, they say.

"That is our first caution -- this is likely to have cost effects -- and the second caution is that it is unlikely to diminish dependence" on China, Ms. Alfaro said in an interview.

The research echoes findings from a forthcoming paper by Caroline Freund of the University of California, San Diego, and economists at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which examined how trade in specific imports from China had changed since Mr. Trump began imposing tariffs on them.

That paper found that tariffs had a substantial impact on trade, reducing U.S. imports of the goods that were subject to the levies, even as the absolute value of U.S. trade with China continued to rise.

The economies that were able to capture the market share lost by China were those that already specialized in making the products that were subject to tariffs, like electronics or chemicals, as well as locations that were deeply integrated into China's supply chains and had a lot of trade back and forth with China, Ms. Freund said. They included Vietnam, Mexico and Taiwan.

"They're also increasing imports from China, precisely in those products that they're exporting to the U.S.," she said.

What this all means for efforts to bring manufacturing back to the United States is unclear. The researchers come to different conclusions about how much that trend is occurring.

Still, both sets of researchers -- as well as other economists at Jackson Hole, the Fed's most closely watched annual conference -- pushed back on the idea that these supply-chain shifts meant that global trade overall was retrenching, or that the world was becoming less interconnected.

The pandemic, events in Ukraine, and tensions between the United States and China have prompted some analysts to speculate that the world may turning away from globalization, but economists say that trend is not really borne out in the data.

"We don't see de-globalization at a macro level," Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director general of the World Trade Organization, said during a panel at the Jackson Hole symposium. But she pointed to what she characterized as a worrying change in expectations.

"Rhetoric on de-globalization is taking hold, and that feeds into the political tensions and then into the policymaking," she said. "My fear is that rhetoric might turn into reality and we might see this shift in investment patterns."

Others at Jackson Hole warned of other consequences, such as product shortages.

A move toward production domestically or in only closely allied countries could "imply new supply constraints, especially if trade fragmentation accelerates before the domestic supply base has been rebuilt," Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, said in a speech on Friday.

Global supply chains tend to change slowly, because it takes time for companies to plan, invest in and construct new factories. Economists are continuing to track current changes to global sourcing.

Given growing geopolitical tensions with China as well as more recent troubles in the country's economy, further shifts in global supply chains may be unavoidable.

One question for economists now, Ms. Alfaro said, is whether the economic benefits from moving factories back to the United States or other friendly countries -- like innovation in the U.S. manufacturing sector -- will ultimately outweigh the costs of the strategy, for example, the higher prices paid by consumers.

And separately, Ms. Freund said she believed the costs of reshoring had been "really under considered" by the government and others.

The typical narrative was that "we're going to bring it all back and we're going to have all these jobs and it's all going to be hunky-dory, but, in fact, it's going to be extremely costly to do that," she said. "Part of the reason we had such low inflation in the past was because we were bringing in lower-cost goods and improving productivity through globalization."" [1]

 

We pump out the propaganda about democracy and human rights every day, and in reality no democracy has increased in China or elsewhere, we only increase the earnings of intermediaries between us and China with our ideas. The same with Russia, whose refined oil in the form of diesel and petrol is sold to us by India at high prices. We need to stop electing babbling fools to high positions in our states.

 

1. Cutting Ties With China Isn't So Easy: [Business/Financial Desk]. Swanson, Ana; Smialek, Jeanna. 
New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y.. 01 Sep 2023: B.1.

 

Why are we, Lithuanians, so eager to buy unrealistically expensive living places?

"Lithuanians are recovering from the previous boom in prosperity, when not only prices but also wages jumped up, and they are gradually getting poorer, because the real purchasing power - what the average wage can buy, regardless of its formal increase - is falling. However, the prices of real estate that no one is buying are stuck.

Neither interest rates trying to fly into space nor reduced demand move them down more seriously. For several years now, the persuasions of analysts that you should not buy, but rent and live long and happily have not worked. On the other hand, for Lithuanians real estate continues to be, if not a huge craze, then at least part of the national sport. According to the data of the State Data Agency, if in 2012 4,622 natural persons engaged in transactions with real estate (this activity code covers everything from trading to renting), that is, in 2021 already 18,395 citizens.

Nothing strange, remembering the real estate boom that happened. One part flocked to look for easy money, to invest as if from a cornucopia of various supports and payments during the pandemic, the other try to take care of their old age. "Investment apartment" has never been so popular.

Here we can start looking for answers why a statistical Lithuanian, unlike a statistical German, tends to buy, even if giving up the last bite of bread, stick to one place instead of renting and thus change cities and places of residence during his life, choosing to be as comfortable as possible.

"Verslo žinios" surveyed banks and it turned out that the average loan is currently around 100 thousand euros, a monthly payment is from 600 euros, the monthly salary of the borrower from 1,500 euros "in hand", but usually the loan is taken together with a co-debtor.

As for housing ownership in Lithuania, 72.6 percent have their own houses, 16 percent are those who purchased housing with a loan, 9.4 percent. - rent cheaper or live for free, 2 percent pay the market price. For comparison, in the Netherlands 60.3 percent have a mortgage, only 10.2 percent of residents own their living place.

A large number of residents in Denmark, Sweden, and Germany rent apartments, much less own their own homes.

This is where the fun begins. We sometimes try to promote that it is worth renting and not getting attached to the property, especially when the loan payment is higher than the rent.

However, at the same time, one forgets to mention a nuance that is particularly significant when a person chooses to buy or rent.

This is social security. In many Western countries and Scandinavia, the probability that if you lose your job and can no longer pay rent (in 2023, the average old-age pension in Lithuania is 542 euros - what can you rent in Vilnius for that amount and still live on?) is quite low. For example, the Netherlands has a particularly developed social housing institute and low-income people live successfully in cottages and apartments, perhaps just outside the city center. If a period of unemployment occurs, the rental payment is reduced or disappears at the same time. This is a form of support. At the same time, it affects the other rental market. In Germany, when problems arose due to too high rental prices, the state simply froze them. I am not going to decide whether it is good or bad, but it is recognized that rent and housing are not only commercial, but also social.

Who will answer today - to which old people's home will go a citizen who, believing the analysts' stories, rent a house for the rest of his life, and then be left with a pension of 542 euros? 

Can we ensure the security of this layer? They are desperately trying to buy an "investment apartment" to at least double their pension, because they see no other way to live in Lithuania with dignity. How many analysts during the real estate boom talked about it?

It goes without saying that people, impoverished during the crises that come into their lives every ten years, "had to take care of themselves". I don't blame the pension system written by the lobbyists, where the mutual funds benefit more than the contributors, but this is not the generation that could yet understand how the break goes in transition from socialism to capitalism. It just is this way.

What to do? The answer is to create and improve the social security system so that a person receives the appropriate service for the taxes paid.

At the same time, it would reduce social tension. Without solving these problems, we may go the way of Portugal. According to the BBC, the average rent in Lisbon today for a standard 50 square meter apartment is now around €1,200 and the minimum wage is around €760. People work two jobs just to avoid being thrown out on the street.

Influencer Diego Soro described how ordinary Portuguese people live:

"There are divorced couples who can't move out and live separately because they can't afford it financially, which I think is cruel. Elderly people are forced to choose between paying rent or medicine, so they shorten their lives just to keep a roof over their heads."

Dissatisfied with the situation, residents of Lisbon and surrounding cities have already started to take to the streets - one of the rallies attracted 30,000 people, and the local mayor called this situation "the greatest crisis of this generation".

Although rent prices are enormous, higher than in the richest districts of Berlin, and wages are much lower than in Germany, a quarter of the apartments in the city center are empty. After the pandemic, the market for short-term rentals, which bring higher income than long-term rentals and increase the price of the latter, has been disrupted. Rich people fleeing from Russia after the events in Ukraine pushed the prices even higher. In order to get a "golden" EU visa, you need real estate. Therefore, some of the apartments are empty - rich Russians simply rewrite them to each other in order to comply with the formalities for the Schengen visa and residence permit in the EU.

The Portuguese are already considering that it is time to start regulating the rental market.

Is regulation necessary in Lithuania? I don't think so, but more and more social security would change not only social services, but also the real estate market. So far, the Santaros University Hospital has funds for a rest home in Nida, but there is no money for a quality nursing home.

  And as long as there are quite a lot of decently earning people who worry about the future, there will always be someone to manipulate them."


Kodėl mes, lietuviai, iš paskutiniųjų perkame nerealiai brangius būstus?

"Lietuviai atsigauna po buvusio gerovės šuolio, kai į viršų šoko ne tik kainos, bet ir algos, ir po truputį skursta, nes reali perkamoji galia – tai, ką gali nupirkti už vidutinę algą, nesvarbu, kad ji formaliai padidėjo – krenta. Tačiau nekilnojamojo turto, kurio niekas neperka, kainos stovi kaip įkaltos.

Jų žemyn rimčiau nepajudina nei į kosmosą bandančios išskristi palūkanos, nei sumenkusi paklausa. Jau keletą metų neveikia ir analitikų užkalbėjimai, kad reikia ne pirkti, o nuomotis ir taip gyventi ilgai ir palaimingai. Iš kitos pusės, lietuviams NT ir toliau lieka jei ne visuotinio pamišimo, tai bent nacionalinio sporto dalimi. Valstybinės duomenų agentūros duomenimis, jei 2012 m. operacijomis su nekilnojamuoju turtu užsiėmė 4622 fiziniai asmenys (šis veiklos kodas apima viską, nuo prekybos iki nuomos), tai 2021 m. jau 18 395 piliečiai.

Nieko keisto, prisimenant koks NT bumas buvo nutikęs. Viena dalis plūstelėjo ieškoti lengvų pinigų, investuoti kaip iš gausybės rago per pandemiją pasiliejusias įvairias paramas ir išmokas, kita pasirūpinti senatve. „Butas investicijai“ dar niekada nebuvo toks populiarus.

Čia galime pradėti ieškoti atsakymų, kodėl statistinis lietuvis, skirtingai nuo statistinio vokiečio, linkęs pirkti, kad ir atsisakydamas paskutinio duonos kąsnio, prisirišti prie vienos vietos, o ne nuomotis ir taip per gyvenimą keisti miestus ir gyvenamas vietas, renkantis, kad būtų kuo patogiau.

„Verslo žinios“ apklausė bankus ir paaiškėjo, kad vidutinė paskola šiuo metu apie 100 tūkst. eurų, įmoka nuo 600 eurų, tokį kreditą imančio atlyginimas nuo 1500 eurų „į rankas“, tačiau paprastai paskola imama kartu su bendraskoliu.

Kalbant apie būsto nuosavybę Lietuvoje, nuosavus namus turi 72,6 proc. gyventojų, 16 proc. būstą įsigiję su paskola, 9,4 proc. – nuomojasi pigiau arba gyvena nemokamai, 2 proc. moka rinkos kaina. Palyginimui, Nyderlanduose 60,3 proc. gyventojų įsigiję butus su paskola, tik 10,2 proc. gyventojų jie priklauso.

Nemažai gyventojų Danijoje, Švedijoje, Vokietijoje būstus nuomojasi, gerokai mažiau turi nuosavus namus.

Čia prasideda įdomybės. Pas mus kartais mėginama propaguoti, kad verta nuomotis ir neprisirišti prie turto, ypatingai tada, kai įmoka už kreditą didesnė, nei nuoma.

Tačiau tuo pačiu pamirštama paminėti niuansą, kuris yra ypatingai reikšmingas žmogui pasirenkant pirkti ar nuomotis.

Tai socialinis saugumas. Daugelyje Vakarų šalių ir Skandinavijoje tikimybė, kad jei neteksi darbo ir nebepajėgsi mokėti nuomos (2023 m. vidutinė senatvės pensija Lietuvoje 542 eurai – ką Vilniuje galima nuomotis už tokią sumą ir dar pragyventi?) ten gana menka. Pavyzdžiui, Nyderlanduose ypatingai išvystytas socialinio būsto institutas ir mažas pajamas gaunantys žmonės sėkmingai gyvena kotedžuose bei butuose, galbūt tik ne miesto centre. Jei nutinka bedarbystės laikotarpis, tuo pačiu ir sumažėja, ar išvis išnyksta nuomos įmoka. Tai paramos forma. Tuo pačiu tai veikia ir kitą nuomos rinką. Vokietijoje, kai kilo problemos dėl per aukštų nuomos kainų valstybė jas tiesiog įšaldė. Nesiimu spręsti tai gerai ar blogai, tačiau tai pripažįstama, kad nuoma ir būstas ne tik komercinis, bet ir socialinis aspektas.

Kas šiandien atsakys – į kokius senelių namus pateks pilietis, kuris, patikėjęs analitikų pasakojimais, visą gyvenimą nuomosis būstą, o po to liks su 542 eurų pensija? Ar mes galime užtikrinti šio sluoksnio saugumą. Būtent jie kol kas iš paskutiniųjų ir stengiasi įsigyti „butą investicijai“, kad pensija bent padvigubėtų, nes kito kelio oriai gyventi Lietuvoje nemato. Kiek analitikų per NT bumą apie tai kalbėjo?

Tik nereikia pasakoti, kad žmonės, nuskurdinti per kas dešimt metų į jų gyvenimus ateinančias krizes, „turėjo pasirūpinti savimi“. Nekaltinu lobistų parašytos pensijų sistemos, kur naudingiausia investiciniams fondams, o ne įmokas mokantiems, tačiau tai ne ta karta, kuri dar galėjo suvokti, kaip vyksta lūžis ir perėjimas iš socializmo į kapitalizmą. Tiesiog taip yra.

Ką daryti? Atsakymas – kurti ir tobulinti socialinio saugumo sistemą, kad žmogus už sumokėtus mokesčius gautų ir atitinkamą paslaugą.

Tuo pačiu tai mažintų socialinę įtampą. Nesprendžiant šių problemų galime nukeliauti Portugalijos keliu. BBC duomenimis, šiandien vidutinė nuomos kaina Lisabonoje už standartinį 50 kvadratinių metrų butą dabar yra apie 1200 eurų, o minimalus atlyginimas – apie 760 eurų. Žmonės dirba dviejuose darbuose vien tam, kad neatsidurtų gatvėje.

Kaip gyvena eiliniai portugalai apibūdino influenceris Diego Soro:
„Yra išsiskyrusių porų, kurios negali išsikraustyti ir gyventi atskirai, nes finansiškai negali sau to leisti, o tai, mano nuomone, yra žiauru. Vyresnio amžiaus žmonės priversti rinktis mokėti už nuomą ar vaistus, todėl trumpina savo gyvenimą, kad tik turėtų stogą virš galvos.“

Padėtimi nepatenkinti Lisabonos ir aplinkinių miestų gyventojai jau pradėjo eiti į gatves – vienas iš mitingų sutraukė 30 tūkst. žmonių, o vietos meras šią padėtį pavadino „didžiausia šios kartos krize“.

Nors nuomos kainos milžiniškos, didesnės, nei turtingiausiuose Berlyno rajonuose, o algos kur kas mažesnės, nei Vokietijoje, ketvirtadalis butų pačiame miesto centre tušti. Po pandemijos subujojo trumpalaikės nuomos rinka, kuri atneša didesnes pajamas nei ilgalaikė nuoma ir didina pastarosios kainą. Dar labiau kainas į aukštumas pakėlė po įvykių Ukrainoje iš Rusijos bėgantys turtuoliai. Norint gauti „auksinę“ ES vizą, reikia nekilnojamojo turto. Todėl dalis butų stovi tušti – juos turtingi rusai tiesiog perrašinėja vieni kitiems, kad atitiktų formalumus Šengeno vizai ir leidimui gyventi ES.

Portugalai jau svarsto, kad laikas pradėti reguliuoti nuomos rinką.

Ar reguliavimas reikalingas Lietuvoje? Nemanau, tačiau vis daugiau socialinio saugumo pakeistų ne tik socialinių paslaugų, bet ir nekilnojamojo turto rinką. Kol kas Universitetinė Santaros ligoninė turi lėšų poilsio namams Nidoje, tačiau pinigų kokybiškiems senelių namams nėra.

 O kol bus gana daug padoriai uždirbančių žmonių, kurie nerimauja dėl ateities, jais manipuliuoti visada atsiras kam.”