China estimate of the day

The estimates imply that trade with China increased U.S. consumer surplus by about $400,000 per displaced job, and that product categories catering to low-income consumers experienced larger price declines.

That is from a new paper by Xavier Jaravel and Erick Sager.

Comments

Trump has still said nothing to defend the NBA from China. He is a coward. He lacks the spine to stand up to totalitarianism.

...It all started with a 40-year container terminal lease between the Port of Long Beach in southern California and Hong Kong. The Obama administration proudly signed the agreement in 2012 giving China control of America’s second-largest container port behind the nearby Port of Los Angeles. One of the Trump administration’s first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach. After a national security review and federal intervention, the Long Beach terminal business, which handles millions of containers annually, is finally being sold to an Australian company called Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. That essentially kills China’s decades-long contract with the Obama administration....

Yet the Australian Gov has allowed the Chinese to take control of the Port of Darwin.

First things first—killing the Obama rental deal of the Port of Long Beach.

First the article: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1642.pdf

Crtl+F "food" and this comes out on page 41:

"We find that higher-income groups benefit proportionally more from increased trade with China: 6.19% more for college-educated households relative to those without a college degree; 8.39% more for households earnings above $60,000 a year relative to those earning less; and 14.53% more for households earning above $100,000 relative to below $30,000."

These differences result from the fact that, between 2000 and 2007, import penetration from China increased faster in product categories that sell relatively more to higher-income groups (e.g., in consumer electronics rather than in food products). This finding is confirmed in Column (4) in a sample restricted to goods only (including services tends to attenuate the differences, because higher-income groups spend more on services and services are not exposed to trade with China)."

There you have it. If you look only at the BLS Consumer Price Index Food, you get to the conclusion that lower-income is the most benefited from trade with China. If you look only at goods, specifically at food which represents a good fraction of poor people expenses, the benefit is no there. Food is not cheaper because China :/

higher-income groups benefit proportionally more from increased trade with China:

Higher income groups have, by definition, more money to spend on consumer goods. The fact that they benefit more, proportionally, from imports doesn't negate the benefits trade brings to lower income groups.

40 million US people receive subsidies to buy food because enough food is above their income.

It's not about percentages saved but the type of things that are cheaper.

The food subsidies aren't just for 40 million low income Americans. They're also for farmers, agri-business enterprises, food manufacturers and distributors and retailers. The 40 million, often obese, low income consumers aren't dining on rice, beans and grits. They're eating meals that pre-industrial royalty couldn't get.

Thank you, Axa. I saw "surplus catering to low-income consumers," pictured them spending it at Walmart, along with a cart full of things bought with SNAP. But I wouldn't have been able to explain it as you did.

"The estimates imply that trade with China increased U.S. consumer surplus by about $400,000 per displaced job, and that product categories catering to low-income consumers experienced larger price declines."

Shouldn't the measure be solely the "trade increased by displaced jobs" and not trade in total? It is possible to have a lot of trade without displacing jobs.

I suspect that Walmart benefited as much as Apple as the result of trade with China: all those cheap household goods produced in China that Walmart shoppers buy by the cart-load, most of which eventually end up in the local landfill. But manufacturing in the U.S. suffered, right? During the economic recovery manufacturing output in the U.S. soared (even as GDP did not). Can you say imported intermediate goods. But hasn't manufacturing output in the U.S. fallen during the past year? Can you say tariffs on imported intermediate goods. The story of China and trade is a lot more complex than most people realize, which is a benefit to a politician like Trump. If we really wish to accurately measure "consumer surplus", shouldn't we take into account the cost to the environment for the carbon emissions in China as the result of the China miracle, and the cost to remediate the effects of global warming? I suspect the consumer surplus would become the consumer deficit.

I am a long-life Republican voter, but in 2020 I will vote Democrat. Enough is enough. I can't remain silent while the President trashes our country.

Thiago, as a foreigner, you can't vote in our elections unless you want to go to jail. Trump will put you in a cage.

My name is not Thiago. I am Mr. Ellswoŕth from Raleigh, in the Great State of North Carolina.

North Carolinians are known for putting accents over their r's

I am outraged by Oresident Trump's betrayal of our allies. #weareallbrazilianstoday #theberlinairliftofourtime #brazilwillriseagain #neverinthefieldofhumanconflict #brazilsfinesthour

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what Brazilians did. They were allies in WW 1, WW 2, the Cold War and the War Against Terror. They have helped America to face Red China and the European Union. They have helped America to curb the enviromentalist and the homosexual agendas. How could our president betray our closest ally?

So Trump doesn't think highly of Brazil. He is just a very ignorant person, it doesn't make him wrong. He feels Argentina and Romania are much more important to the OECD than Brazil. That's why he chose them.

So that is it. He is right when he throws our closest ally under the bus. There was a deal. Brazil gentlemanly fulfilled its side of the bargain. Yet, Trump backstabbed it. To support pro-socialist Argentina!!!!!!!!?

#weareallbrazilianstoday #theberlinairliftofourtime #brazilwillriseagain #neverinthefieldofhumanconflict #brazilsfinesthour #neverforget

Most studies that I’ve seen of various tariffs typically find that they cause consumer prices to rise by high-six-figures per job saved. $400,000 is lower than that but still an order of magnitude over the value of one of these typical jobs. I’ve never seen a study quantifying the consumer costs versus employment benefits of tariffs that comes out in favor of the tariffs, not even from the pro-tariff people.

George Mason runs several student programs in partnership with China, and presumably lots of other American universities do too. Knowing what we know now, one has to wonder to what extent the word goes around that that Chinese money is conditioned upon the American professoriate carrying on a robust defense of China's interests.

Comments for this post are closed