Providential Penalties: A Salutary Case of Point Protectionism

This blog has often referred to point protectionism, my term for the myriad instances where governments override [or ignore] trade agreements - including those which are supposedly universal under the World Trade Organisation [WTO] - in order to give advantage to their native producers or to disadvantage alien producers who can outsell their native producers in some markets some of the time.

The recent cause celebre in this category is the action that the US government has taken against the Canadian aircraft firm Bombardier at the instance of Boeing, a US-Based competitor. Britain has a particular interest in this case as the wings of the aircraft under challenge are made in Northern Ireland. In the first instance, last week, the US slapped a 220% tariff on the import of the 'planes on the grounds that the Canadian and British governments had given grants to Bombardier. Yesterday the US took a second bite of the cherry, and added another 80% tariff. This 300% imposition is extremely high: in most cases where the US has accused another country of 'dumping' produce at lower prices than US firms can match, the levy has usually been below 100% of the sale price: as has happened in recent years with imports of basic classes of steel from China.

Britain and Canada have pointed out that Boeing is one of the most heavily state-supported companies in the world; which, of course, cuts no ice with the US Administration.

This is a crude and simple case where a competitor to the US market leader has introduced a product [to which no US firm currently provides a direct competitor] which is obviously highly desirable to US airlines. So the new product is to be priced-out of the American market.

This can happen in any sector of the economy, where a foreign firm attracts American customers to a new or redesigned product: and it probably will, as the world becomes ever more highly competitive. This is a timely and salutary lesson for the bonkers Brexiteers: those who say that Britain can thrive on its own in the world, under WTO Rules. Whenever it suits the USA, Australia, Brazil, Russia or any other country - however comprehensive a trade agreement Liam Fox can dream up with them - they can say "We have imposed this tariff! The WTO can whistle for their rules to apply; and the UK can put its trade deal where the monkey put the nuts." At such times - and there would be an infinite number of them - a solitary post-Brexit Britain would suffer immense disadvantage. To imagine otherwise requires a high degree of intoxication in a very small mind.

In the 2016 Referendum I voted for exit from the political absurdity of the European Union. I did not vote for this nation to die slowly, of starvation. We must stay within the European Economic Area, on the best terms that can be obtained. As Mrs May's moribund government fails to say what it wants to achieve, with any precision, the Torygraph today has a banner headline to the effect that the EU has opened up stronger channels of communication with Mr Corbyn and his associates. Mr Corbyn has learned a lot in the past year - more than I had previously thought possible - but whether he can absorb this particular lesson in Political Economy before he comes to power remains to be seen.

Labour Luddites and a Prime Minister as a Poodle

Jeremy Corbyn has gained a new measure of popularity in recent months, largely because he has become popular. He has changed from being a crabby, obsessed 'leftie' to being an almost-charismatic emblem of popular disgust with boring, respectable politicians. In his speech yesterday his main task was to transmit some of the enthusiasm that was being shown - to excess - in the hall at the Labour Party Conference to the wider population; while combining it with a measure of responsible policy that can be presented to the electorate. Much of what he has recently advocated has my strong endorsement , based on half a century of intensive study of the history and effectiveness [or, as usual, ineffectiveness] of economic policy: especially when derived from economic theory. A modern country needs a mixed economy, with a large amount of state investment and public ownership of natural monopolies [which must, of course, be at least as well managed by the public sector as the private sector: which would be hard to achieve, but is doable].

One aspect of his speech, however, verged on the cretinous. That was his apparent Luddism in suggesting that action should be taken - including punitive taxation - to prevent human beings' jobs being taken over by robots; presumably at the behest of wicked capitalists. Virtually every forecast for the medium term future of the economy envisage huge benefits [not least, massive gains in productivity and in the range of products and experiences that will be available] due to innovations where human ideas are made into products and experiences to be enjoyed by everyone by the combined action of people and machines drawing on intensified robotics and enhanced artificial intelligence [AI].

The origin of the term Luddism comes from the mythical character Ned Ludd, the supposed organiser of the gangs of handicraft workers who broke into premises and smashed machines that were capable of replacing old-established crafts [because they greatly enhanced productivity] in the new factories, particularly in textile manufacture in the period 1790-1820. Individual employers were ruined by the Luddites, and a few workmen were penalised when they were caught in the act [or betrayed by colleagues]; but over a couple of decades the machines prevailed, and employment increased [though this often included child exploitation, until that was banned by laws that were enforced by inspectors who actually entered the employers' premises]. The ban on child labour, the ban on womens' night work, bans on the use of dangerous chemicals and processes need to be enforced in a civilised society: the state must be active in the economy to promote and preserve human rights and humans' health. One result of recent laissez-faire attitudes in society at the start of this millennium is the rise of 'modern slavery' [though I cannot detect anything notably modern about it]. The government's obsessive austerity has reduced the numbers of police officers, while terrorist threats have reoriented the work of many officers: with the result that offences like internationally-traded forced prostitution and domestic service have grown almost uninterrupted.

This is the background against which - so it is promised - Mrs May is to utter a peon of praise to the 'free market' as the central point of her speech to the Conservative Conference which opens today. This will be contrasted by the press [which is predominantly pro-Conservative] with the backward-looking old socialism and Luddism of the Corbyn effort yesterday. Mrs May will utter this claptrap in between calls to the US president asking for his intervention in a trade war with the US over the fate of the Bombardier aircraft factory in Belfast [and three other plant in Northern Ireland, as described yesterday in this blog]: a prime example of point protectionism which makes nonsense of the hard Brexiteers' vision of the future. Mrs May has to press this case, in defence of free trade ideology, despite the fact that her parliamentary majority depends upon taking a chauvinistic stance on the Bombardier issue. She lost the recent general election, and clings on to power with the votes of the Democratic Unionists. All the Bombardier plants are in constituencies held by the DUP: and the Bombardier jobs are of such importance to Catholic as well as Protestant workers that Sinn Fein's leader has signed a joint letter with the DUP leader to send to the US Vice-President. Hostilities at Stormont have been transcended by this issue; and Mrs May is compelled to make a nonsense of her free market rhetoric even as she utters it. Nevertheless, as a poodle of the Northern Ireland politicians she has no option but to demonstrate in the clearest way that her rhetoric is claptrap. Thus the Tories will be diminished by the inconsistency and infighting that will be in full view in the coming days: yet they all know they must hang on to office, or Corbyn will have the chance of his lifetime.

Bombardier Bombarded: A Lesson for Brexiteers

The Canadian aircraft manufacturer, Bombardier, has suffered a huge blow at the hands of the US regulatory system: a tariff of 220% has been imposed on imports of its new aircraft to the USA: one of whose airlines has ordered 75 of the planes, with a further order pending. Both the British and Canadian governments have made grants to the company, to maintain its technological capabilities and to protect employment in Canada and in Northern Ireland; and Boeing, the US aircraft builder has cried 'foul' even though the new planes will not compete directly with any of their products.

Boeing has massive contracts with the US military and with NASA. The prices set on such products are necessarily sufficient to support the research and development that is necessary to design and build the craft and devices: thus giving Boeing a comfortable profit base that exempts the firm from any need openly to seek subsidies for its civil aviation sections. Bombardier - the former Short Brothers in Northern Ireland - now has little demand from the British defence sector, which is so strapped for funds that the national defences have been excessively depleted and the country only manages to present figures showing that it meets the NATO target of 2% of GNP on defence by cooking the books rather brazenly. It is absolutely essential that a country purporting to be any sort of power invests hugely in defence technologies, which are expensive. The more innovative the defences are, the more they are likely to cost: and the more effective they are likely to be. It is a quaint paradox that some of Corbyn's 'loony-left' colleagues are more likely to see this than are Tory Brexiteers, because they can see the linkage between economic development and military might in Russia, China and the USA.

On the same day as the US decision was taken on the new tariff, the British train building section of Bombardier also received very bad news. A long-planned consortium arrangement with Siemens to build a new generation of trains for the world market was abandoned by the German firm in favour of an alliance with the French firm, Alstom. This has, allegedly, been engineered at the behest of President Macron, whose government is reviewing all major sectors of the economy with a view to ensuring that the French presence in each, within a European context, is the best that it can be from a chauvinistic French viewpoint. Brexit Britain can expect many more similar snubs from the Macron regime.

Both these stories teach the lesson that an isolated Britain depending on free trade agreements under WTO rules cannot succeed. WTO rules do not prevent the US paying Boeing top prices for research of incalculable value. WTO rules will not stop President Macron's chauvinistic plans from coming into effect. Cash tariffs are trivial obstacles to trade, compared with regulations on product standards and safety that can be manipulated in to assist favoured products, and the 'needs of national defence'. The naive optimism of 'hard' Brexiteers is a form of idiocy. Unless the UK remains within the European Economic Area, with all its common standards and definitions, British firms and their products will be picked off [by being deemed not to meet standards] one by one, as their European competitors develop their capacity to supply the equivalent of their former exports.

British airlines and train companies are under no pressure to buy British: so the demise of the bombardier plant in Belfast and Derby is threatened. British jobs can be lost, and with them generations of accumulated knowledge: and the dimmer Tories won't even weep into their whiskies. Of course, there are intelligent people of conservative cast of mind: but few of them are content with the present deeply-riven government, and even fewer are comfortable about the prospect of a 'hard Brexit'. Despite his Marxist blinkers, John McDonnell shows some awareness of these issues. As the parties stand at the end of the Labour Conference today, Labour has the best of the bad arguments. I do not expect the Tories to gain any ground when they meet in conference next week.

How to Turn Things Round: By Jingo

The term 'jingoism' has fallen out of use in the British Isles. Its origin comes from a song that was popular in a different social, economic and political environment from that that under which the UK is now groaning [and today being downgraded by yet another credit-rating agency, Moody's]: the song goes:
We don't want to fight
  But by Jingo if we do,
  We've got the ships, we've got the men,
  And we've got the money, too!

Very quickly after his seizure of power in 1933, Hitler got the German economy on the move by re-armament and by building up the supporting infrastructure: re-equipping steelworks and arms factories, and building the Autobahns. This created employment, which in turn generated demand for radio sets, new clothes and better food. Britain's turnaround after the Depression of the early 'thirties was also helped by a massive increase in armaments including - as mentioned in the last couple of blogs - the construction of dozens of airfields, which dispersed the RAF's growing but limited resources and made it vastly harder for the German airforce to attempt to destroy our 'planes; and a massive house building effort.

The British economy could massively be boosted right now by re-running what we did in the 'thirties. We could order the twenty frigate-type ships the navy needs, and equip them both for missile weapons, and for rescue missions [such as the one in which we have so visibly been inadequate in the West Indies in the past few weeks]. The order for ships could only be fulfilled by sub-contracting the building of sections of the hulls to small shipyards around the country and boosting the capacity of Rolls Royce and other firms to produce the engines and equipment. That would involve thousands of sub-contractors, who would all be able to invest in improved machinery and better work practices, to apply both in their defence contracts and their increasingly-competitive civilian work. The future of Short-Brothers [aka Bombardier] in Ulster and of Westland would be boosted by having aviation capability on the new ships and on Britain's long-neglected island bases around the world. Instead of being reduced, the number or Royal Marines and soldiers should be expanded: all of this putting wages into peoples' pockets and 'real' business into the shops those people use.

At the same time, a state-funded scheme of construction of 'affordable' homes should begin: that too would create jobs in the sector; and break the near-oligopoly of the existing developers [who are deliberately concentrating on an inadequate supply of higher-cost housing]. It would add to demand for businesses all down the supply chain and thus increase demand in the whole system; and the houses would start to produce a flow of rental income within a year, which could then fund  the scheme in future years [preferably boosted by the income from selling some of the houses as the supply became less stretched].

And how would this all be paid for? As the austerity addicts would plaintively claim.

By borrowing. By offering National Recovery Bonds at a rate of interest [capped at 6%] that would be at least 1% higher then the Retail Prices Index - something close to 4% as things stand just now. There are millions of people who have been starved of sensible vehicles for their savings, all through the era of low interest rates that followed from the crisis of 2007-9. As the economic growth provided by those two stimuli [defence and housing] all other sectors would face higher demand: led by innovative young companies. Thus the cost to the government would be only the interest that had to be paid [plus administrative costs]: and that would easily be met by the growth in the national income that would have been stimulated.

It has been done before: it can be done again. The only things needed are credible leadership in both politics and economic life. The bus-pass holders have the money!