If fertility drops much below 2.1 babies per woman, the population will shrink unless it is offset by higher immigration. For this reason, a demographic cloud hangs over China. It may be the first country to grow old before it grows rich. ... Its fertility rate is below two and its working-age population will start to decline around 2015.
Back in the '60s, for example, just as inflation was beginning to be a big problem, Presidents J.F.Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson would often publicly browbeat companies for raising prices and threatening to move federal defense purchases to different countries.
You can sort of see elements of Donald trump policy in different walks of life. Brazil and France have a long history in intervening in business decisions to protect local jobs. What I don't think we see is much evidence that in the long run those types of tactics make much difference, when the economics of production are pushing in the other direction.
Donald Trump hasn't been specific, but if you go back over some of the campaign rhetoric, well, obviously, there's the bully pulpit, just publicly shaming out-sourcing companies. And that again is not new to Trump. If you remember, back in 2004, John Kerry was making noises about Benedict Arnold CEOs in a similar context. So, that's got a long and gloried tradition.
Donald Trump can, for example, imply the threat that federal business will be withheld from some of companies. That's possibly dangerous precedent. You know what I mean? When - the Pentagon has very specific guidelines, for example, when it goes out and does procurement. You don't want them buying a jet engine which is actually inferior to another jet engine simply because that other company outsourced some jobs. The final thing that Trump could do is he could impose tariffs on any products that are imported once they have been outsourced to another country.
There's no question that protectionist or sort of moral suasion efforts like this can make a difference on a case-by-case basis. We have seen it in the past. It will probably save a few thousand, possibly more, jobs this time. But if the economics are saying that this is an expensive place to produce stuff, it's very hard to see that turning that around. That's why it would be more useful to focus on some of the other points that I think Donald Trump was making about making US a better place to manufacture.
Tariffs are in the end taxes. And somebody has to pay that tax. I think one thing people are forgetting is that trade disputes are two-sided. When the United States imposes tariffs on a partner like Canada, there is always a possibility that Canada will say that's not fair and retaliate. And at that point, you have to ask the question, - which U.S. industry will suffer because the Canadians retaliated against it?
