What is economic history if not the chronicle of individuals trying to improve their respective conditions (maximize their utility, as economists say) by exchanging with their fellow humans and eventually developing extended commerce and markets? (See John Hicks, A Theory of Economic History.) Of course, economic history also reflects “the dark side of the force” as some individuals choose looting instead of voluntary exchange. Economic history is ongoing. We get a scent of all that in Paul Kiernan’s “Logging Is a Way of Life in Appalachia. It’s Hanging on by a Thread,” in the October 29, 2024 issue of the Wall Street Journal.
Hardwoods (oak, hickory, maple, walnut, and cherry) were, with furs, among the first exports of the American colonies. They have had many uses, from flooring and cabinetry to airplane propellers and pulpwood for manufacturing paper. More efficient substitutes have been developed: aluminum alloy for propellers, plastic for flooring, softwood or agglomerates for furniture, etc. “Efficient” means what consumers choose given their preferences, incomes, and the relative prices of substitutes. Technology also affects costs on the supply side and thus market prices. Because of online publishing, for example, the demand for paper has decreased, so the demand for smaller hardwood trees (used as pulpwood) has also gone down. Given all these factors, fewer workers are required in the lumber industry, composed of sawmill workers, loggers, and truckers. Logging as a way of life in Appalachia has been threatened for some time.
There is nothing sacred about the lumber industry or any other industry, in Appalachia or elsewhere. Consumer demand and producer costs change, as the whole economic history of mankind testifies. But this does not mean that political authorities should mess with the industry. Compounding the purely economic factors—related to voluntary supply and demand on markets—the trade war launched by the US administration with its 2018 tariffs against Chinese products (and, more to the point, against their American consumers) has contributed to the decline of the Appalachian hardwood industry and its way of life. The reporter explains:
As domestic demand for wood shriveled, Appalachian sawmills turned to exports. From 1999 to 2017, U.S. hardwood-lumber exports nearly doubled to $2.65 billion. China, where wood has been prized in architecture for centuries and a rising middle class fueled a housing boom, accounted for 57% of U.S. hardwood exports at the end of that period.
That meant the industry was exposed when the trade war came. From 2017 to 2019, exports to China fell 50%.
Output [of Eastern hardwood production] this year is on pace to be 40% lower than 2017, the year before the trade war with China dealt the industry a heavy blow.
The Chinese government retaliated against the new American tariffs by imposing its own tariffs, including on lumber imports. As usual, the Chinese tariffs were most likely paid by Chinese importers, but they reduced Chinese demand for lumber, notably imported lumber. Retaliation is as absurd as the tariffs it responds to, for it duplicates the damage. The Chinese government punished “its” domestic consumers because the US government had punished “its” own consumers (including the intermediate industrial users). Tariffs and retaliation introduce a double coercive wedge in commerce: they are a form of looting. Note that even without retaliation, a tax on imports (a tariff) is also a tax on exports through the increase of the importing country’s currency price after imports are restricted.
Another way to look at this is that the American government’s favoring domestic production of tariffed goods such as steel and aluminum led to less hardwood production. This is not surprising: resources (labor and capital) are limited and, ceteris paribus, the production of more of one good or service means less of something else. Protectionism led to the competitive hardwood industry in Appalachia to produce less than they would otherwise have produced, and the non-competitive steel and aluminum industry to produce more. Protectionism is inefficient.
The WSJ reports that Chinese tariffs on American lumber were abolished early in 2020. But this did not repair the Appalachian lumber industry. Protectionism often has long-term effects on market opportunities. More generally, when a government interferes with trade, whether domestic or international, it undermines free enterprise, consumer satisfaction, and general prosperity.
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Nov 3 2024 at 11:46am
“Protectionism often has long-term effects on market opportunities.”
Indeed, once bitten, twice shy. It disincentivizes future investment.
“and the non-competitive steel and aluminum industry to produce more. Protectionism is inefficient”
No, sorry, that’s the rub. Quick google shows USX has > $400k sale PER EMPLOYEE.
And the Chinese DO subsidize steel, indeed so does the US though I believe mostly through state economic development agencies. So really we don’t know who’s actually more efficient at producing steel. And I might add not just producing steel but at producing steel and transporting it to the site where it is to be used, whether an auto factory in Japan, China, Detroit, or a skyscraper in Manhattan. Location becomes relevant because steel is heavy and it costs money to move it around.
Sawmills persist in the Upper Cumberland where I live in TN.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 3 2024 at 12:51pm
Craig: I don’t think there is a rub (but it’s a good idea to raise the question).
Sales per employee tells us nothing more than would, say, sales by square foot of corporate building space. Laborers who don’t work in steel would work in another industry (as history demonstrates). If there is a single measure that would tell us anything, it would be the return on capital in steel if it were not protected by tariffs or otherwise. (And even then, the stock market would soon bring back the return on capital to a normal level ceteris paribus.) Note that the American steel industry has been protected by tariffs or other protectionist measures off and on since the Civil War, and probably more often on than off (building the railroad cost much more because of this). A history buff like you should love Doug Irwin’s Clashing Over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy–I mean the book, not merely my review. The only way to know if an industry is efficient is its survival without coerced subsidization, including by tariffs.
“Competitiveness” means “given what the world is, including the subjection of individuals under foreign tyrants.” Similarly, to use an analogy, you cannot consider the English language (say) as a subsidy for American businesses. On this, you may want to reread my post “Taking Comparative Advantage Seriously.”
Warren Platts
Nov 3 2024 at 2:27pm
The $400K in sales per employee is a rough estimate of their labor productivity. For comparison, for workers in the food service industry, their productivity is on the order of only $30K/employee. So when unfair trade practices turn steel workers into food service workers, not only do the workers lose, the USA loses. Ricardo’s theory isn’t working.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 3 2024 at 3:12pm
Warren: Two important points. (1) Average employee productivity is useless for these purposes, for it includes the productivity of capital (and land). Moreover, what we want is marginal productivity, which we can try to estimate by assuming a production function (like Cobb-Douglas). (2) Only collectivists think that there is some floating marginal productivity that belongs to the collectivity. One can argue that others benefit from one’s productivity, but that is through trade. This could be approximated by consumer surplus, although we then just get a partial-equilibrium estimate.
Warren Platts
Nov 3 2024 at 3:48pm
Pierre: Respectfully disagree. (1) I understand there’s also capital & land productivity in addition to labor productivity. However, capital & land are either ephemeral bits of imagination, or unfeeling machines & unthinking pieces of real estate. They have no moral considerability in themselves. Only individual humans count. That’s why labor productivity is what ultimately matters. So we should want to maximize labor productivity, defined as GDP/hour of labor. Why? Because high labor productivity entails high wages and high wages entail high standards of living. (2) When I write “the USA loses” I’m not referring to an organicist superorganism. I’m merely pointing out that when steel mills are closed and steel workers are reduced to food service associates working in shiny, new establishments, the USA’s GDP is lower than it otherwise would be.
Matthias
Nov 4 2024 at 6:53pm
The pay is also a rough measure about how much those people could earn elsewhere.
Software engineers in Appalachia would also earn a lot more on average than many other people there. But that’s not evidence that it’s efficient to have software engineers there. The same people earn even more closer to the coasts.
It’s all about opportunity costs.
steve
Nov 3 2024 at 1:20pm
Slightly OT but adjacent. Is it odd that I never see mention of Smoot-Hawley when we discuss the large increase in tariffs being proposed? If I get 3 economists in a room I will probably get 4 explanations about the causes of the Great Depression but I think most people would agree that while it was not necessarily causal it worsened things.
Steve
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 3 2024 at 3:19pm
Steve: Good point! Perhaps we, economists, tend to present instead the arguments underlying the contribution of Smoot-Hawley to the Great Depression. I do mention Smoot-Hawley in my Regulation assessment of Trump’s proposed tariffs.
Warren Platts
Nov 3 2024 at 3:24pm
I happen to live in the Brookville, Pennsylvania that article is mostly about. Matson is going out of business for sure after he stopped hiring locals & was importing Mexican workers for six months at a time that were put up in a dormitory & whom were ordered around using a Google language app. Brownlee is a crony capitalist: as you read, he’s chairman of some sort of hardwood export lobbying consortium. As far as I’m concerned, those losers are getting what they deserve.
Moreover, the Chinese weren’t even using the logs those guys were exporting! Instead, the logs were dumped for storage in Chinese harbors. So China’s sitting on huge stockpiles of American logs. There is no need for China to import more.
The other thing that’s been going on was the decimation of the U.S. furniture industry thanks to the China Shock. That industry was a huge source of domestic demand for U.S. lumber. Bringing back furniture manufacturing, with tariffs if necessary, will help U.S. lumber producers.
Meantime, other companies around here are doing just fine. I personally know a couple of guys who each run their own 1-man boutique lumber yards. E.g., not long ago I bought some 18″ wide by 5/4″ thick red oak boards that I built a westport-style chair out of. You’ll never find boards that wide anywhere else at any price but at such places. They’re keeping as busy as they want to be. Also, there’s Brookville Wood Products. I wonder why they weren’t interviewed. Probably because they’re smart enough to do more value-added than selling raw logs — they’ve expanded into baseball bat manufacturing. There’s also a brand new white oak whiskey barrel factory and lumber yard just twenty miles west of here. They’re succeeding because they’re adding value rather than merely being the world’s raw materials supplier. Also not interviewed.
In short, that article is anti-Trump economic policy hit piece. At the same time, PennLines magazine came out with an article on the Pennsylvania lumber industry (the online version hasn’t come out yet, otherwise I’d link to it). There you’ll find that the PA lumber industry is chugging along just fine: wood products are 10% of PA’s manufacturing work force; PA is the top hardwood producer in the USA; lumber contributes $21 billion to the commonwealth’s economy…
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 3 2024 at 3:50pm
Warren: With due respect, have you forgotten your economics and returned to your partisan instinct and gut feelings? If true, you are not the only one. Remember what Joseph Schumpeter wrote, preceding public choice analysis:
He is happily gullible and, for example, will believe, if his tribe believes it, that Haitians are stealing and eating cats in Springfield, not to mention economic ouï-dire.
Warren Platts
Nov 3 2024 at 4:19pm
Exactly! Like I said, I’m happy with the Schumpeterian destruction of Matson & Brownlee. And don’t kid yourself: Brownlee is disingenuously complaining about the lack of free trade: I guarantee you he’s using that article to angle for export subsidies. I hope he goes under.
I admit we can’t be certain the government is importing Haitians so they can eat cats (the economic ouï-dire is they are here to lower labor costs). However, I do know for a certain fact that the government just yesterday sent in a 12-man SWAT team to kill a world-famous pet squirrel named “Peanut” apparently because he was seen on TikTok wearing a MAGA hat…
Roger McKinney
Nov 4 2024 at 9:53am
Schumpeter did not have government intervention in mind when he wrote about creative destruction.
Warren Platts
Nov 4 2024 at 2:50pm
You must not have read my first comment. Matson was going out of business anyways as evidenced by the fact he had to import non-English speaking Mexican workers. Brownlee won’t be far behind. Like I said, he’s crony capitalist — he wants export subsidies. Nobody in this town is sorry to see them go. Yes, their destruction is creative.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 5 2024 at 11:41am
Well, Warren, if purchasing an input like labor services (or printing machines or steel or whatever) where it costs less is evidence of bankruptcy, all businesses in the free-enterprise world (or what’s left of it) are bankrupt. In your view, only state corporations are not bankrupt, because they follow state diktats instead of maximizing their profits! It is a strange conception of bankruptcy and efficiency.
Matthias
Nov 4 2024 at 6:56pm
Do you have any sources for China storing huge stockpiles of American lumber? Especially in their harbours.
You know that space in harbours is at a premium? Why would they not store it somewhere cheaper?
Ahmed Fares
Nov 3 2024 at 4:29pm
re: stranded assets
There is an additional cost to trade wars that should be noted. Paul Krugman explains:
Trade Wars, Stranded Assets, and the Stock Market (Wonkish)
Roger McKinney
Nov 4 2024 at 10:01am
Like a typical socialist, Krugman thinks he can pit capital against labor. In a free market, their interests are the same. Only government intervention can change that. Massive regulations that protect corporations from competition benefit capital at the expense of labor. Government protection of unions hurts capital in the short run, but hurts labor more in the long run by driving jobs across borders.
Ahmed Fares
Nov 4 2024 at 2:14pm
I agree with what you wrote. My point of quoting Krugman was only in respect of stranded assets.
As for borders, that also includes state borders, as corporations prefer to build factories in right-to-work states instead of union states. You weren’t clear on which borders you were referring to, so I may just be repeating what you wrote.
Jose Pablo
Nov 4 2024 at 9:20pm
hurts labor more in the long run by driving jobs across borders.
Well, maybe. But we tend to forget that within the USA there are more jobs than people of working age willing to work.
Some people want to make America great again but don’t pay too much attention to them. The fact is, it has never been greater!. Despite the free trade agreements, the illegal immigration, the unsustainable government debt …
Jon Murphy
Nov 3 2024 at 7:11pm
Good stuff Pierre. Just one comment. You write:
I wonder if it’s true that steel and aluminum did produce more. Given how tariffs harmed washing machine, autos, and office construction (major uses of US produced steel), I suspect, on net, steel and aluminum production are actually lower than otherwise because of the tariffs.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 4 2024 at 12:31am
Jon: That’s good point. We would need to check the data. But I don’t think it contradicts what I prudently wanted to say, which implied a silent “than they would otherwise have produced” for steel and aluminum too. At least it would have been a valid syntax in French. Perhaps ambiguous in English?
Jon Murphy
Nov 4 2024 at 8:55am
I didn’t think your point was ambiguous. I thought you meant “than they would otherwise have produced” for steel and aluminum, as well.
I’m wondering if, given the complexity and ad hoc nature of the trade war, if it isn’t actually more likely that steel and aluminum production are lower than they would be without protection since the trade war undermined their key downstream industries.
Warren Platts
Nov 4 2024 at 10:06am
Untrue. Now that the washing machine tariff is over (it lasted from January 2018 to February 2023), washing machine prices in real terms are below pre-tariff prices. Why? Because the tariff had the intended effect of increasing competition within the USA.
Jon Murphy
Nov 4 2024 at 10:19am
Interesting interpretation of events.
Warren Platts
Nov 4 2024 at 3:05pm
Check out Figure 1 in this article. In early 2018, after the tariff started, there was a bump in price and then when the tariff was removed, sure enough, there was price drop — albeit the price is rather volatile tariffs or no. But that’s what tariffs are supposed to do: raise prices. Right? The result was more jobs and two major firms shifting production to USA, increasing domestic competition. The mainstream economic straw man that protective tariffs are meant to reduce competition is misunderstanding of protectionism. Since at least the 19th century, the idea is to increase competition within the U.S. behind the tariff wall.
If one wishes to criticize protectionism, it would behoove them to at least try to understand protectionist theory. E.g., 99% of mainstream economists will tell you that “protectionism” and “mercantilism” are synonyms. They are not. They are practically opposites.
Jon Murphy
Nov 4 2024 at 3:50pm
Yeah, I saw that article and assumed it was where you were getting your claims. I had trouble verifying their data, and even the data presented doesn’t support their argument (eg, Table 1 contradicts Figure 1). Furthermore, the job gains they cite were temporary; they’ve all been lost, at least according to IHS Global Insights and the BLS. It seems like a bunch of cherry picking and not looking at the overall picture, coupled with some reasoning from a price change.
When I see layoffs in the industry, missed profit goals, the CEO of Whirlpool explicitly blaming tariffs for weak sales on his call with investors, fewer establishments, and declining market share compared to imports, I see the drop in price as due to falling demand and the removal of tariffs rather than increased competition.
As an aside: weird that you point to the job creation as a good thing given just over the weekend, you decried exactly that as foreigners buying up all our money making assets.
Warren Platts
Nov 4 2024 at 10:11pm
I had trouble verifying your data.
Not at all. Table 1 says the CPI went up 4% from Jan 2018 to Jan 2020 and that Laundry equipment CPI declined by 2% over the same period. Just eyeballing Figure 1, that looks right to me.
There have been declines in employment, but not ALL the job gains of 2018 have been lost. Meanwhile, the number of washing machines produced has increased. In other words, they are producing more with fewer workers, which is another way of saying labor productivity has increased. Exactly what we should expect from increased competition and exactly what we want.
Kettle meet pot.
Nope. Whirlpool’s profits in 2023 were twice their profits in 2017. Inflation hasn’t been that bad!
Not exactly. When the washing machine tariff was enacted, Marc Bitzer was all for tariffs: “This is, without any doubt, a positive catalyst for Whirlpool.” But then he complained when the steel tariffs hit. Understandable. No one likes paying higher prices.
Wrong again. All the legacy major U.S. washing machine makers are still in business, plus now there are two more: LG and Samsung.
Yeah, since the tariff ended in 2023. Looks like tariffs actually work!
Nice try. As you well know, greenfield investments in new factories such as LG or Samsung constitute a tiny percentage of total foreign “investment” (less than one percent). Meantime, fully one third of the trillion dollars out of the federal budget that goes for debt servicing is paid to foreign holders of that debt. That does not create jobs.
Jon Murphy
Nov 5 2024 at 7:05am
Much like the article you cite, there’s a ton of assertions but no real evidence, or logic, to support the assertions. And some of your responses are just gibberish.
I’d like to see some sort of analysis to support your point rather than factually incorrect post hoc ergo propter hoc claims.
Warren Platts
Nov 5 2024 at 1:28pm
This is called psychological projection.
steve
Nov 4 2024 at 3:17pm
Prices have come down a bit and production is up a bit in the US. AFAICT that is largely due to the large plant built in Clarksville. It is the most modern plant in the country and productivity is high. Proponents of tariffs and the former President claim that plant was built due to the effects of tariffs, however planning for there plant started in the early 2010’s and they were making bids on property in 2016 (see link). A cynical person might think they specifically chose to put a tariff on washing machines because they already knew the plant in Clarkson was in the works.
https://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/local/clarksville/2019/05/30/lg-electronics-plant-opening-5-things-know/1269343001/
Steve
Warren Platts
Nov 4 2024 at 10:14pm
That’s not at all what your link says. What happened was Clarkesville’s been trying to develop that land since the early 2010s and every deal they tried to put together fell through. LG looked at the land in October 2016, but didn’t announce they were building a factory until after a month Trump was in office making noises about tariffs.
steve
Nov 5 2024 at 1:55pm
Yes, after planning the plant for years they officially announce it one month after tariffs are announced. The sounds like great planning by the LG CEO and team. By delaying their announcement they virtually guaranteed strong support from both the federal and local govt. Go find some businesses where they didnt even think about building until after the tariffs were announced.
Just as a note, both LG and Samsung had been found guilty of dumping machines in the US in 2016 which is when the accelerated efforts to look at building in the US.
Steve
Jose Pablo
Nov 4 2024 at 8:56pm
So, the intended effect of increasing competition within the USA drove prices lower than they were when foreign competition was driving domestic producers out of the market
So, using the same logic if you regulate the most competitive domestic producer out of the market, the result should be a price reduction caused by the increasing competition among the other (initially less competitive) domestic producers.
That makes no sense. And if a theory doesn’t make any logical sense it can never provide a good interpretation of the facts. Even if the senseless theory matches the facts (kind of a nine circles armillary sphere with planet Earth at the center)
Jon Murphy
Nov 5 2024 at 7:06am
Bingo. Although, in this case, the hypothesis doesn’t even match the facts.
Warren Platts
Nov 5 2024 at 1:27pm
The difference is American producers compete more or less on a level playing field versus places where the workers only get $1/hour
Jose Pablo
Nov 6 2024 at 12:55pm
That is (or could be) one of the reasons why they were competitive in the American market. But I don’t see why the particular reason why they were competitive should affect market dynamics (volumes, price, benefits to American consumers, etc…). The effects should be exactly the same as if they were competitive because liquid steel was freely pouring out of that foreign country’s fountains.
Now, being both of us compassionate human beings, I can only understand your suffering with the well-being of these poor foreign workers surviving on a salary of $1/hour. I just don’t see how the closure of their factories (that will follow from us buying less of their goods) will help them in any way.
If you are really worried about them (God bless you for your good heart!), the right thing to do is to buy more of the goods they produce (or, alternatively, let them immigrate to the USA and share the abundance that we enjoy here)
Warren Platts
Nov 7 2024 at 2:05pm
Chinese workers would be better off if they were less “competitive” because after all, “competitive” is code for low wages..
Roger McKinney
Nov 4 2024 at 9:50am
Whoever wins this election, we’re likely to see far higher tariffs because they’re too popular. Very sad. We may be facing another reduction in trade similar to the results of Smoot-Hawley. It’s going to be a rough ride.
Jose Pablo
Nov 4 2024 at 9:07pm
What is really surprising is that politicians (at least some of them) perfectly understand the problem with tariffs. And not only do they understand the problem with tariffs, but they are also capable of explaining it in pretty straightforward terms that shouldn’t represent a cognitive challenge even to the dumbest of Presidents.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/about-trumps-reciprocal-tariffs-he-wants-to-raise-taxes-and-thinks-im-the-stupid-one-5dc3c56c?page=1
I see this as (another) vindication of public choice theory. It is not that they are ignorant or dumb (as they try to make us believe on so many occasions). It is just that they are cynical, eager to pretend that they believe what they know to be false, with an obvious objective function in mind.
Jon Murphy
Nov 5 2024 at 7:12am
I agree with your conclusion (higher tariffs likely) but I disagree with the reason (tariffs are popular). Many polls, from Cato to Pew and others in between, show tariffs are not popular (especially once even minor costs are mentioned) and that the majority of people want freer trade. The bigger issue is that trade is a minor concern for many voters. If I recall correctly, only about 1% of voters mentioned trade as an issue for them.
Rather, I see tariffs continuing because of standard public choice reasons: concentrated benefits, dispersed costs, and rational ignorance.
David Seltzer
Nov 5 2024 at 1:08pm
Pierre: It seems tariffs also harm domestic producers who export. Not only because of retaliatory tariffs, but because the importing foreign country has sold less to us. Hence, they less revenue to purchase our exports.
Jose Pablo
Nov 5 2024 at 1:38pm
Or to purchase American debt or equity.
America is pretty good at pouring some resources into a new company and selling the future stream of cash flows this new company is believed to generate in the future, at many (many!) times the cost of the initial resources poured into that company. That truly amounts to the creation of wealth out of thin air.
Or at selling to foreigners non-collateralized government debt at very low interest rates. Saving all of us taxes that can then be redeployed by Americans to the very lucrative business cited above.
Both very valuable abilities are damaged by the reduction in imports that tariffs are supposed to accomplish.
David Seltzer
Nov 5 2024 at 2:26pm
Jose: Yes. The price of equity they purchase is the present value of expected cashflows. Rather profound concept in its brevity.
Jon Murphy
Nov 5 2024 at 1:39pm
Very true. Additionally, since a lot of those dollars come back as loanable funds, tariffs have led to increased borrowing costs, in turn reducing both the consumer and producer’s ability to borrow and improve their lives. There’s a recent paper that shows how Trump’s trade war led to a significant increase in interest rates. I’ll link to it when I can.
David Seltzer
Nov 5 2024 at 1:10pm
Should read have less revenue to purchase our exports.
Comments are closed.