To Achieve "Re Industrialization In The United States"? Maybe It Depends On China.

At the Boao forum for Asia, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the people's Bank of China, said when he talked about the frontier trade tax promoted by Trump, he did not agree with Trump's hope of protecting the employment by closing the door to resist globalization.

Zhou Xiaochuan said, "from an economic point of view, the use of administrative means to support a certain field, we must take other areas of economic resources to this area, this resource redistribution is an artificial discrimination."

In fact, in the past 8 years since Obama's term of office, Obama has always wanted to achieve "return to manufacturing" and "re industrialization of the United States".

However, in order to maintain the leading position of the United States in global manufacturing competition and seize the commanding heights of international industrial competition, Obama made full preparations for the new round of industrial revolution and emphasized the difference of "re industrialization". Trump's manufacturing policy was to hope that the US company could return to the US and hope that the revitalization of the manufacturing industry could lead to more employment.

After all, it is one of the important reasons for Trump's successful election to cater to the domestic blue collar's dissatisfaction with the US manufacturing outflow.

Judging from the actions taken since taking office, Trump's political initiatives are intended to fulfill the promise of "closing the US border" and "bringing work back to the United States".

Trump not only continued Obama's "manufacturing backflow" plan, but also prepared to achieve "revitalization" by restricting imports and drastically lowering taxes.

Campaign slogan.

Against this background, China, as the world's largest manufacturing country and exporter to the US, has repeatedly become the focus of public opinion in the past few months due to tariff, product dumping and manufacturing employment.

From the data point of view, in 1950, the proportion of manufacturing industry in the United States accounted for 40% of the global manufacturing industry, and the proportion of manufacturing industry in the United States accounted for more than 30% of GDP. In 1979, when the peak employment was created, the employment rate of manufacturing industry was close to 20 million, which accounted for nearly 30% of the total employment. Now, the proportion of manufacturing industry in the United States is less than 19%, which accounts for only about 13% of the proportion of GDP in the United States, and the proportion of employment created by the United States is less than 10%.

However, these figures completely misread the global competitiveness of American manufacturing.

Because manufacturing output in the US has reached record levels, and the decline in the US manufacturing sector in the world is the result of "industrial drift".

Since 1860, the center of manufacturing industry has begun to shift globally. The emergence of new manufacturing centers has reduced the contribution and proportion of US manufacturing industry.

But from the perspective of output value, the total output value of the US manufacturing industry has been increasing. Before 2010, the United States maintained the status of the world's largest manufacturing power for more than 100 years. Even though it was overtaken by China in 2010, the United States is still the second largest manufacturing country in the world.

Moreover, according to the statistics of GNP (gross national income) instead of GDP (gross domestic product), the output value of the US manufacturing industry is still the first in the world. If we look at the global manufacturing industry chain, the United States, as the most powerful power in manufacturing industry, occupies the upper reaches of many manufacturing industry chains all over the world.

For Apple alone, its smartphone accounts for more than 90% of global smartphone profits.

In other words,

In the process of promoting the global cooperation of the manufacturing industry chain, the United States shifted the low cost products of the high cost industrial chain and retained the high profit part, thereby ensuring the status of the manufacturing power.

So, obviously, the United States, which has dominated the global trade advantage by the high-end manufacturing industry, is now really no problem in order to increase employment restrictions?

In recent days, President Trump has increased the number of manufacturing jobs in the US by restricting the amount of imports.

According to the analysis of economists from the Pedersen Institute of international economics, the greater the contribution to the gross domestic product of the United States, the higher the dependence of raw materials and components on foreign imports.

Manufacturing industries, such as computers and electronics, are highly dependent on imported components.

CNBC believes that the way to boost American manufacturing by restricting imports is actually to sacrifice the most valuable and competitive industries in the United States to subsidize the backward industries that have been eliminated.

Moreover, the main reason for the loss of jobs in the US manufacturing industry is the increasing productivity of the US manufacturing industry, rather than the competition of imported products.

For example,

The factory is moving back to the United States - a fast factory in Atlanta, which plans to produce about 50 thousand shoes in 2017, and hopes to eventually achieve the annual output of 500 thousand shoes.

NPP analyst Matt Powell told Bloomberg interview: "I never thought that one day in the United States, we could see the shoemaking enterprises in the traditional business scale."

Sure enough, when Adidas started the factory in Atlanta, only about 160 people were employed. In order to reduce the high labor cost, the factory adopted a complete automated production line.

This contrasts strongly with Adidas's intensive labor model in shoe factories in Asia and Latin America.

Therefore, some American scholars believe that although a few jobs are hit by imports from China and other countries, if the government really wants to help those who are backward in technology and trade, what the government should do is to develop direct aid programs instead of being tempted by protectionism.

At the same time, from the point of view of American enterprises, it is not realistic to change the existing business mode and pfer profits from the upper reaches of the manufacturing industry chain to the whole industrial chain.

On the contrary, manufacturing enterprises in the United States need to rely on importing products from China and other countries to expand their scale and market.

Therefore, the prospect of Chinese manufacturing enterprises exporting to the US may be far from pessimistic.

For more information, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats and Internet cafes.