Trump : have different top priorities in a trade war

L’article est intéressant, car si M. Trump veut ramener des emplois aux États-Unis, il va être obligé de choisir ces batailles.

Si on veut avoir des emplois payants, il faut avoir des emplois ayant une forte valeur ajoutée.

Donc, selon le nombre d’emplois qu’il veut ramener ou augmenter son PIB, il devra choisir certains secteurs en particuliers.

C’est pour cette raison que le plan Nord, le sirop d’érable, le porc, la potasse, ne sont que de l’exportation à faibles ajoutés, maintes fois je l’ai mentionné c’est une économie de pauvre, l’Afrique en est une belle plus exemple, voici un extrait de l’article que j’ai écrit en 2013.

UNE ÉCONOMIE DANS UN VASE DE PORCELAINE

Trois exemples typiques :

1.      Le coût d’extraction des sables bitumineux coûte très cher, s’il y a une technologie permettant d’extraire le pétrole conventionnel à moindre coût (pétrole par fragmentation),les sables bitumineux deviennent  moins rentables, donc, nous sommes obligés de le vendre à rabais. De plus, certains projets d’investissement sont mis sur la glace, car elles deviennent difficilement rentables.

2.      Hydro-Québec, grâce à l’introduction des gaz de schistes aux États-Unis, nous a obligés de vendre notre électricité à moindre coût, 4 cent le KW/heure quand le peuple québécois le paie à 7 cents, encore une vente à rabais.

3.      Le Plan Nord, ces mines sont à la limite de la solvabilité, puisque nos clients principaux sont les pays émergents, le transport coûte deux fois plus chères que l’équivalent australien, ajouté une pureté moindre et un climat difficile, on se retrouve avec des redevances d’États minimes.

Ajouter les coûts des infrastructures que le gouvernement québécois doit assumer ou les maintenir, on risque facilement de dérailler vers un rendement négatif.

De plus, si le marché des matières premières baisse, on risque d’avoir un éléphant blanc sur le dos, car ce sont ces premières mines qui vont être fermées à cause du coût d’exploitation.

Donc, le fait de ne pas avoir attaqué le problème de front sur notre baisse de compétitivité, nous avons créé une économie fragile.

Une économie basée sur les matières premières fait peut-être un beau PIB, mais malheureusement génère peu de richesse, parlez-en aux pays africains, ils connaissent très bien le dossier. (1)


Extrait de: This is the 'damage' imports have done to America's industries, Matt Turner, Nov. 29, 2016, 12:18 PM

There has been a lot of talk of deglobalization and potential trade wars in the aftermath of Donald Trump's election as US president.

The president-elect has accused China of manipulating its currency, said he will withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, and said he will bring back jobs to the US

With that in mind, Deutsche Bank economists Zhiwei Zhang and Li Zeng took a look at how a trade war (think tariffs and quotas) between the US and China might play out. In a note published Monday, the duo ranked the industries by the ratio between domestic production and domestic demand. 

The chart below shows the extent to which domestic demand could be met by domestic production, assuming US-made goods weren't exported. In other words, if there were demand for 100 leather belts in the US in 2015, and the US produced 80 leather belts that year, the ratio would be 80%. 

The lower the ratio in the chart below, "the stronger is the indication that a sector was hurt badly by imports." 

clip_image002

Deutsche Bank

The most extreme example here is "textile, apparel and leather products," in which domestic production in 2015 met only 36.6% of domestic demand. That is down sharply from 1997, when the percentage was more than 60%. 

There is a similar story in the "computer and electronics" industry, though US production there is much higher, meeting 60.5% of domestic demand. 

At the other end of the chart, US domestic production of goods like "paper products," "food, beverage & tobacco," "chemicals," and "fabricated metal products" all come in at above 90% of domestic demand. In addition, for many of these industries, the ratios really haven't changed.

"This suggests that these industries are not being hurt so badly by imports," the note said. 

Here's Deutsche Bank on the findings:

"Among industries with low domestic production to demand ratios in 2015, there seem to be three groups:

(i)                  Those whose situations had worsened over time, including 'computer and electronics', 'electrical equipment and parts' and 'furniture'. For instance, in 1997, the US's domestic production of 'computer and electronics' could meet 92 percent of its domestic demand. It dropped to 72 percent in 2006, and was only 61 in 2015.

(ii)                (ii) Those where most 'damages' by imports seemed to have taken place prior to 2006. This includes 'textile, apparel and products' and 'automobiles, trailers and parts'.

(iii)              (iii) The last group is 'oil and gas extraction' and 'miscellaneous manufacturing'. Although their domestic production to demand ratios were low in 2015, they had been stable or even improved compared with early periods."

Zhang and Zeng focus on the first and second group, or those industries in which the situation has worsened over time or where the damage was done before 2006. They looked at how a 10% reduction in the trade deficit in each sector would affect gross domestic product and found that the industries that deliver growth would not necessarily bring back jobs to the US, and vice versa. 

clip_image004

Deutsche Bank

Focusing on "computers & electronics" would add $18 billion to US GDP along with a lot of jobs. But focusing on "oil and gas extraction," while adding a lot in US GDP, would have less of an impact on the labor market than focusing on the "textiles, apparel & leather good" industry. 

The report said: 

"The analysis suggests that the US should probably have different top priorities in a trade war, depending on whether it wants growth or jobs most.

If the US wants the biggest boost to growth, industries with high value-added should be its top priorities, such as 'computer and electronics' and 'automobiles, trailers and parts'.

Figure 6 shows that a 10 percent deficit reduction in 'computer and electronics' would raise the US's domestic value-added by some USD18 billion.

On the other hand, if what the US wants most is to 'bring jobs back', especially to lower income areas, it should place its top priority on 'textile, apparel and leather products'.

While this sector only ranks 4th in terms of additional domestic value-added, the extra labor compensation it would bring is the second highest. Considering the low labor cost in this industry, it probably means most job increase among all industries."