Houston, We Have A Problem. Corporate Profit Growth Has No Limit

https://abc13.com/houston-we-have-a-problem-weve-had-remember-when-history/1869513/

Introduction

US Corporate profits grew from $1.9 Trillion(T) on an annual basis in the second quarter of 2019 before the pandemic to $3.0T in the second quarter of 2022; plus $1.1T (+57%)!!! US nominal gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 17%, from $21.3T to $24.9T, an increase of $3.6T. Real, inflation-adjusted, GDP grew by just 4%, accounting for a $0.8T increase in the real economy. Inflation grew by 13%, causing the other $2.8T of measured GDP. The $1.1T of increased corporate profits represents 39% of the inflation which has occurred in the last 3 years.

Analysis

Let’s look at the growth of US corporate profits from a half-dozen starting points to try to put this into perspective.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP

YearProfitReal ProfitAnnl Incr StageCum Annl Incr
197055142
19802732717%6.7%
19954683071%3.1%
20061,3886288%4.5%
20121,8808193%4.3%
20181,947775-1%3.6%
20223,0121,0237%3.9%
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-

US corporate profits reached $3 Trillion in 2022, up from essentially zero in 1950. I’ve selected 7 peak profit years to outline this growth. Nominal profits increased from $55B in 1970 to $3.0T in 2022. In real, inflation-adjusted terms, profits have grown from $142B to $1,023B, a 7-fold increase in 52 years! Annual profit growth has been erratic, increasing by a high of 8% from 1995 to 2006 and a low of -1% from 2012 to 2018. The cumulative annual real profit growth has stayed near 4% throughout the period. 4% compounded for 52 years is a little more than 7x.

The US population grew from 200.3M to 338.3M during this period, 1.0% per year. So, corporate earnings grew by 3% per year above the rate of population growth for 52 years!!!! This kind of compound growth rate cannot continue for long periods of time without greatly impacting other sectors of the economy.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-06/stock-market-u-s-corporations-hit-record-profits-in-2021-q3-despite-covid?sref=d6fKRvkp&leadSource=uverify%20wall

Corporate profits fluctuated in the 4-6% of GDP range from 1947 through 2000. Profits jumped up to 10% of GDP by 2010 and have largely remained at this two-fold elevated level for a decade. Profits reached a new record of 12% in 2022!

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A466RD3Q052SBEA

This measure shows profits growing eight-fold since 1970. (I’m going to ignore the detailed differences between the various measures of profit. They are important, but not necessary to see the major growth in profits, which is broadly consistent across the various measures.)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W273RE1A156NBEA

A tighter measure of corporate profits shows an increase from 4.5% to 7% of GDP, even before the most recent profit growth.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A445RE1A156NBEA

An alternate measure of just “domesticly earned” corporate profits shows a flatter trend.

Another way to consider profits is to view its complement, the share of national income received by labor.

https://www.epi.org/blog/the-fed-shouldnt-give-up-on-restoring-labors-share-of-income-and-measure-it-correctly/

By this measure, labor has lost 10% of its income, while capital has gained 10% since 1980.

https://www.epi.org/blog/the-fed-shouldnt-give-up-on-restoring-labors-share-of-income-and-measure-it-correctly/

6% of GDP was moved from labor to capital.

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-new-look-at-the-declining-labor-share-of-income-in-the-united-states

Consulting firm McKinsey shows an 8% of GDP transfer and provides 5 explanations.

https://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/employment-and-social-policy/The-Labour-Share-in-G20-Economies.pdf

Most analyses of the growth in profits and decline in relative wages note that labor productivity has continued to rise by 2% or more annually, but labor has received almost no portion of those gains in the last 30 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_share

Labor share of total income has dropped by 15% in the long-run by this measure.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/estimating-the-us-labor-share.htm

This author calculates a 6-8% decline for labor.

https://taxfoundation.org/labor-share-net-income-within-historical-range/#:~:text=The%20average%20labor%20share%20from,long%20decline%20in%20labor%20share.

A right-leaning think tank adjusts the data and claims that labor’s share remains constant in the long-run. The Tax Foundation does delve into the various measures of income and provides arguments for their preferred measure.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500

Stock prices tend to follow profits. The S&P 500 index has grown by 50% in the last 2 years (despite the recent decline), reflecting the amazing growth in corporate profits during a “once in a century” pandemic driven recession.

https://www.yardeni.com/pub/stmktbriefrevearndiv.pdf

S&P 500 company earnings (a subset of total profits earned) continued to grow strongly through and after the pandemic.

https://cdn.pficdn.com/cms/pgim-fixed-income/sites/default/files/2021-04/The%20Evolution%20of%20U.S.%20Corporate%20Profits_2.pdf

This investment advisor says that profits increased by 5% of GDP.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Median REAL, inflation-adjusted, earnings remained flat at $330/week from 1979 through 2014, a period of 35 years! This is during periods where profits were growing at 4% per year in REAL terms. In the last 8 years, REAL wages have increased by 9%, a bit better than 1% per year on average.

The media has published many articles, especially noting the increase of profits, overall, since before the pandemic. This is a popular topic because the result is certainly counterintuitive and because President Biden and the more left-leaning national Democrats have been criticizing corporations for “price gauging” and causing the recent inflation spike.

https://fortune.com/2022/03/31/us-companies-record-profits-2021-price-hikes-inflation/

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/corporate-profit-is-at-a-level-well-beyond-what-we-have-ever-seen-and-its-expected-to-keep-growing-11649802739

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/corporate-profits-boom-may-lead-to-higher-wages/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-corporate-profits-stayed-high-through-2021-even-as-inflation-took-hold-160908829.html

A variety of sources provide compelling data and logic to indicate that corporations are “taking advantage of” the post-pandemic inflation caused by supply chain issues and expansive fiscal and monetary policies to boost prices at rates faster than their costs of inputs (suppliers, labor, capital).

https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-are-corporate-profits-at-record-highs-because-companies-are-overcharging/20068026/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/record-corporate-profits-driving-inflation/story?id=87121327

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2022/07/corporate-profits-are-increasing-rapidly-despite-increases-in-production-costs/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/27/inflation-corporate-america-increased-prices-profits

Most economists and analysts point to the increased concentration of firms (fewer) by industry increasing their pricing power and allowing them to raise prices during periods of change.

https://academic.oup.com/rof/article/23/4/697/5477414

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/industrial-concentration-in-the-united-states-2002-2017

This is pretty dense and dry stuff. There is a general consensus among economists who focus on this topic that concentration and pricing power have risen very significantly. This is partly due to the simple aging of industries with fewer players left standing. The winners in a world of global competition are simply “much better” than the losers so they continue to take market share. US anti-trust enforcement in the last 40 years has been very limited, following the theory that “open competition” in the long run (Schumpeter’s creative destruction) eventually undermines leading companies with innovative products, processes and market strategies.

The US Chamber of Commerce argues that industry concentration has not increased, noting that consumer choices in broadly defined industries have increased greatly through time.

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/industrial-concentration-in-the-united-states-2002-2017

Summary

By a dozen measures, profit has consistently grown as a share of the American economy in the last 40-50 years. This necessarily means that the share of output and income received by labor is much smaller as a percentage of the total pie. The recent surprising ability of American corporations to effectively work through the pandemic supply chain disruptions, lose more than 10% of their labor force, increase nominal wages significantly, encounter severe input price inflation and still engineer price increases to come out much further ahead on profits is a major story for our time.

It is attracting attention to what I believe is an even more important story: the ability of corporations to incrementally capture nearly all of the increased value added by the productive American economy across 40-50 years and share very little with labor. This structural advantage of a very effective corporate sector “doing its job” within the relatively low-tax and low-regulation US political context is now completely proven.

In an ideal world, we would be developing and considering serious policy options that would limit this excess power without “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs”. Unfortunately, the Republican party remains focused on tax and regulation cuts as the main economic tools and the Democratic party alternates between 1960-70’s era Biden “centrist” policies and much further-left Bernie Sanders style policies.

Trump Presidency Accomplishments

  1. Tax cuts. Corporate rates cut from 35% to 21%, closer to OECD norms. Incentives for returning profits to US. Higher income tax rate cuts.
  2. Regulation cuts. Environment, business, banking, labor.
  3. Lower environmental standards. Withdraw from Paris climate deal. Methane limits. Wetlands. Vehicle milage and emissions standards.
  4. New limits to welfare benefits: Medicare and SNAP.
  5. Antitrust investigations for telecommunications, media, internet, network advantaged firms.
  6. Increased use of Congressional Review Act (1996) to allow Congress to vote down newly implemented regulations.
  7. Economic recovery continued for 3 more years. 2.5% annual growth. 3.5% unemployment. Stock market gains. 6.5M jobs added. Tighter labor market. Increased wages. Minority and lower income gains.
  8. Bipartisan Covid relief spending for individuals and firms.
  9. Home building increased during Trump term and afterwards.
  10. More “Middle Americans” believed that they were heard and represented.
  11. NAFTA agreement renegotiated.
  12. China relations re-evaluated. Higher tariffs on both sides. Technology limits.
  13. Presidential “bully pulpit” used to maintain some US jobs.
  14. Legislation and executive orders used to support US steel, coal and manufacturing businesses and employment.
  15. Legislation passed to improve visibility to tax shelters and tax fraud enforcement.
  16. Agriculture industry subsidies offered to offset trade costs.
  17. Trade deals with South Korea, Japan and EU.
  18. Enhanced trade policy for communications, IT, technology and AI.
  19. Increased military spending.
  20. Revised defense strategy focused on China and Russia.
  21. Flexed US military muscle in limited attacks.
  22. Actions reduced Islamic State threats to low level.
  23. Supported Israel diplomatic relations with 4 Arab states.
  24. US troops withdrawn from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.
  25. Opposition to dictators in Cuba, Venezuela, China and Nicaragua.
  26. Reduced support for international organizations such as WHO.
  27. Built 80 miles of new wall and 300 miles of enhanced walls on Mexico border.
  28. Negotiated improved coordination with Mexico and Central American nations regarding immigration.
  29. Reduced legal immigration from all countries.
  30. Reduced opportunities for asylum seekers.
  31. Used “zero tolerance” family separation policies to disincentivize immigrants.
  32. Removed Affordable Care Act individual mandate.
  33. Streamlined FDA approval process and made financial commitments to ensure rapid COVID vaccine development.
  34. Took steps to reduce drug price inflation.
  35. Invested in opioid drug addiction prevention and correction.
  36. Enacted market friendly policies and regulations to expand domestic energy development, furthering American energy independence.
  37. Supported the bipartisan First Step Act which reduces minimum sentences and supports recovery from incarceration.
  38. Invested in historically Black colleges and universities and vocational education (Perkins).
  39. Made small steps to support “school choice”.
  40. Appointed 3 conservative Supreme Court justices and 225 federal justices.

Trump Presidential Results

Economic Policy

  1. Deficit spending is permanently entrenched. 3-5-7% annual budget deficits do not appear to have major economic downsides in investment crowding out or inflation.
  2. Tax cuts do not generate extra growth, investment, productivity or economic resiliency. They transfer dollars to the recipients.
  3. Concentrated supply chains (China) are subject to significant trade, logistics, military and emergency risks which must be managed.

Foreign Policy

  1. U.S. remains the leading superpower and can pursue its own goals with less allied cooperation and attention to “niceties”, at least in the short run. See NATO, Japan, Korea, climate.
  2. China is the number one competitor.
  3. U.S. and Russia relations are no longer based on Cold War issues. The “Hawks versus Doves” dimension competes with domestic political parties.
  4. Negotiating with nuclear states (Iran, North Korea) is very difficult, even for a superpower.
  5. Europe has its own international interests. It will pursue them. It cannot rely upon the U.S. for its defense.

Domestic Policy

  1. Bipartisan immigration policy may be impossible.
  2. Supreme Court and judicial politicization may drive structural changes/reforms.
  3. Racial relations and inequality will be a top political issue for decades.
  4. Wedge issues – abortion, guns, school content/choice, liberty, gay rights – will remain a focus of both parties.
  5. Traditional social security, Medicare and Medicaid are untouchable.
  6. Obamacare is now essentially untouchable. Lower income citizens will have health insurance.

Democracy at Risk

  1. Legitimacy of media, press, free speech threatened.
  2. Government employees, courts, justice system, law enforcement threatened.
  3. Schools, universities and teachers threatened.
  4. Legitimacy of voting processes threatened.
  5. Illiberal democracy, authoritarianism have more support.
  6. Gerrymandering, voting rules, campaign funding rules undercut public confidence.
  7. Voter participation has increased in response.

Communications Policy

  1. Media attention is priceless and can be manipulated by extreme statements and behavior.
  2. Traditional media “fairness” approach (quotes from both sides) can be manipulated to support unsupportable claims.
  3. Every media outlet or actor has some degree of bias. Consumers are more aware, but many choose to only reinforce existing beliefs.
  4. The president has the opportunity to control/influence the attention of the media.
  5. Facts and objectivity are not respected by some media voices. The pattern of communications statements and framing of subjects can be much more important than content.
  6. Political actors are not held accountable for false claims or exaggerated promises. Claims and promises are just tools to motivate the faithful.

Rules of Politics

  1. President has tremendous power. International agreements. Regulations. Executive orders. Bully pulpit. Political party discipline. Using power seems to have little downside.
  2. Only winning matters. Not popularity, broad support, bipartisanship, appearances, fairness, mud, litigation, critics, impeachment, norms, tradition or relations.
  3. Polarization strategy is more effective than building a central coalition. Motivating your team to vote is more important than persuading independent voters.
  4. Candidate character does not matter. Politicians are salesmen and saleswomen. They are lawyers. They are tools, not statesmen.
  5. Party/team winning is most important factor. 400,000 covid deaths were not enough to spark a revolution. Deaths were traded off against economic opportunity without negative political impact.
  6. Harry Truman’s “buck stops here” responsibility position is not required. No one was responsible for Covid results.
  7. Administrative competence is not required to hold office or to run the federal government (so far). Slow appointments, fast cabinet turnover, acting secretaries, department heads that oppose the role of their departments.
  8. President represents his team and interests, not the whole country.

Party Policy

  1. Philosophical conservatives have departed the Republican party and lost influence.
  2. Moderate Republicans (RINO) have mostly departed, have no political candidates and no influence in the national party.
  3. Extremist groups (race, religion, military, nationalist) are not opposed.
  4. Traditional business interests have much less influence (immigration, social issues, antitrust, trade limits, industrial policy, presidential threats, banking, bailouts).
  5. Pragmatic policies and legislation remain largely unimportant. No party platform for 2020. Everyone in the party “knows” basic positions on all issues. No budget policy debates. No health care alternative to Obamacare. No abortion policy. Statements of preference and intent and belief are more important than wonkish details.
  6. Highlighting the threats and follies of the most leftist Democrats is the most effective means to motivate true believers and maintain support of more independent minded voters.
  7. Only a few federal level policies really matter. Tax and regulation cuts. Social wedge issues. Most other topics can be “managed” with small policy victories and messaging.
  8. Party discipline is essential. Republicans are obligated to support the political winners in their party, not to represent all Republicans or all Americans or to “solve problems”.
  9. Managing the voting system (districts, rules, methods) is as important as policies, candidates, fundraising and communications strategies.

Summary

Trump has revolutionized modern American politics. The Reagan revolution consolidated conservative voters, clearly aligning them with the Republican party. The Gingrich revolution further separated the two parties, emphasizing winning and party allegiance. Republican candidates and voters engaged in a reinforcing cycle of “purist” policy aims such as no tax increases, “drill baby drill” environmentalism, banning abortions, and “bomb baby bomb” anti-terrorism. The Great Recession and the tea party further motivated populist leaning voters to demand populist policies and appeals. Trump modified many historical Main Street and Wall Street Republican policies to make the party better embrace the populist mood and “make American great again”.

Trump’s “only results matter” approach has further transformed the party and the nation. His presidency delivered some key political accomplishments. It also produced many “results” that will shape American politics, economics, society and debate for years to come.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000

https://www.pewresearch.org/2021/01/29/how-america-changed-during-donald-trumps-presidency/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/20/trump-promised-his-supporters-everything-he-didnt-deliver-most-it/

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/18/trump-presidency-administration-biggest-impact-policy-analysis-451479

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/2/20970521/trump-administration-achievements

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-legacy-factbox/factbox-donald-trumps-legacy-six-policy-takeaways-idUSKBN27F1GK

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-government-donald-trump-left-behind

https://www.mcleancountyrepublicans.org/trump_administration_accomplishments

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biggest-accomplishments-and-failures-heading-into-2020-2019-12#failure-covid-19-pandemic-12

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/20/trump-legacy/

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-donald-trump-farewell-remarks-f911b5ea84a2b69291aa6f52b9ef6318

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/trump-got-it-done-jack-t-adams/1139526046

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/14/trump-foreign-policy-wins-losses-over-four-years-china-middle-east-coronavirus-pandemic/
https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2021/01/on-policy-donald-trump-was-by-far-the-most-effective-consequential-conservative-since-reagan/

https://www.newsmax.com/bestlists/donald-j-trump-accomplishments-america-first/2021/06/14/id/1025067/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/even-liberals-have-to-admit-trump-had-real-successes-on-the-economy

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-view-historians/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/29/a-partisan-chasm-in-views-of-trumps-legacy/

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/trump-legacy-and-its-consequences

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/30/politics/trump-legacy-fake-news/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-legacy-analysis-int/analysis-trumps-legacy-a-more-divided-america-a-more-unsettled-world-idUSKBN29P0EX

https://www.cfr.org/article/donald-trumps-costly-legacy

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/20/trump-legacy-how-history-see-presidents-tumultuous-four-years/4158507001/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-will-trumps-legacy-be-after-leaving-office

https://www.yahoo.com/video/what-is-president-trumps-legacy-203123599.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/531734-trumps-legacy-an-enduring-contempt-for-truth/
https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/

Trust in the DOJ and the FBI

Republican Trust in the DOJ Has Improved Significantly Since 2015

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/01/public-expresses-favorable-views-of-a-number-of-federal-agencies/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/04/09/public-holds-broadly-favorable-views-of-many-federal-agencies-including-cdc-and-hhs/

Trust in the Department of Justice (DOJ), overall, has been relatively flat. Republican support has increased while Democratic support has dropped.

Historically, Republicans Strongly Supported the FBI

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democrats-and-republicans-did-a-sudden-180-on-the-fbi/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/

Historically, Republicans have been conservative, supporting the police, military, FBI, defense, “law and order”, criminal justice and “black and white” law enforcement. While the DOJ and some other federal agencies have been staffed by left-leaning coastal elites, the FBI has been staffed by more conservative leaning individuals.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/fbi-donald-trump-base-230755

Overall Support for the FBI has Remained High, but has Become Polarized

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/257489/fbi-positive-job-ratings-steady-among-americans.aspx
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/01/public-expresses-favorable-views-of-a-number-of-federal-agencies/

Different survey questions produced different results, but the FBI is one of the most respected federal agencies.

Trump’s 2018 Attacks on the FBI Drastically Reduced Republican Support for the FBI (see above and below)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fbi-support-is-eroding-but-most-americans-still-back-bureau-poll-says

The Republican versus Democratic split widened.

https://www.vox.com/latest-news/2018/2/3/16968372/trump-fbi-republican-poll-confidence

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republican-confidence-in-the-fbi-has-dropped-since-2015_n_5a721bbbe4b09a544b5616a7

https://ssri.psu.edu/news/mccourtney-institute-mood-nation-poll-examines-public-trust-fbi

Republican’s Response to Trump’s Claims Were Severe

https://democracy.psu.edu/poll-report-archive/poll-report-republicans-no-longer-trust-the-fbi/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republican-confidence-in-the-fbi-has-dropped-since-2015_n_5a721bbbe4b09a544b5616a7

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/03/conservatives-fbi-trump-republicans-389076

Republicans Were Much Less Supportive of the FBI in 2019 versus the Democrats

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/01/public-expresses-favorable-views-of-a-number-of-federal-agencies/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/257489/fbi-positive-job-ratings-steady-among-americans.aspx

Context: Americans’ Belief in or Trust of Institutions Has Been Declining for Decades

https://news.gallup.com/poll/192581/americans-confidence-institutions-stays-low.aspx

Huge 10% drop in the middle of George W Bush’s presidency. 5 institutions with 10% or greater drops in support.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/americans-confidence-major-institutions-dips.aspx

Widespread further decline in support of “institutions” during the pandemic.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx

The broad decline continues in 2022. Can it continue?

I’m Very, Very, Very Scared

538 has a similar article but refuses to link directly. Worth your time to query and copy.

“What Happens When Americans Don’t Trust Institutions?”

If only one-quarter of Americans trust in its basic institutions, how can we have democracy and capitalism and “western civilization”? If “everything is broken”, then we need a dictator or a revolution. Really? Really? Really?

I have to blame the 16 year-old me for some of this. In 1972, we were all opposed to “the man”, “the organization man”, “the establishment”, etc. We were children of the hard-won victory of democracy and capitalism against fascism and imperialism and communism. We believed in progress, science, growth and possibilities. We were skeptical about the Vietnam war, the military, McNamara and his whiz kids, General Curtis LeMay, big corporations, compromises, limitations, bureaucracy, bigness (small is beautiful), population growth, technology, etc. Many of us deeply believed in a romantic idealism or utopianism, making stodgy historical institutions so irrelevant.

Fast forward 50 years and I (we) possess a fundamentally conservative view, embracing the need/value of institutions and channeling our inner Edmund Burke to emphasize the value of the accumulated wisdom of society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

So, the overall decline in trust of American institutions is a real challenge. The decline in trust in the FBI is clearly (IMHO) a Trump driven result. This, too, is a real challenge to our democracy. Do we (I) really believe that the leadership and staff of the FBI have abandoned their democratic principles which we have lived and supported for almost 250 years? I don’t think so. But the decline in trust/belief in all institutions combined with the increasingly politically polarized view of individual institutions makes this a reasonable view for many of our fellow citizens. We have much, much work to do in order to preserve our institutions, government and society.

Good Economic News

Better off, job seekers/job openings.

US GDP/Capita versus Other Countries

Long-term Real US GDP Growth

6 million jobs added in 2021

Great Labor Market

Higher Effective Minimum Wage

Very Low Unemployment

Are You Better Off Economically? Yes!

Labor Productivity

Labor Force Participation

Moral Foundations Theory of Politics

The Righteous Mind-Jonathan Haidt 2014

Political views are rationalizations of moral intuitions. They are demonstrably not the result of dispassionate analysis by individuals.

A small number of moral intuitions are broadly held across time and cultures and can be “explained” on the basis of evolutionary pressures on mankind.

The prevalence of the six logically defined and statistically confirmed dimensions differ markedly between liberal and conservative minded people in various cultures.

1. Care/Harm

Desire to protect children and weaker others from harm. Caring, kindness, gentleness, nurturance, compassion, feelings, empathy. Liberals and conservatives both show an interest in this dimension of morality. Liberals value this dimension most highly. Conservative men and libertarians, on average, show much less interest in this dimension.

2. Fairness/Reciprocity/Cheating

In a social setting, there is a need to rely upon others keeping their word, being honest, doing their share of work, etc. Justice, rights, cooperation, deception, trust. Liberals tend to interpret this in terms of equality. Equal rights, equal opportunity and equal results. Conservatives are closer to the evolutionary basis as seen in game theory / the prisoners dilemma / “tit for tat” winning strategy. They highly value proportionality, closely linking results to inputs or effort.

3. Liberty/Oppression

No one wants the “alpha dog” to take advantage of their position. Individual and group opposition to domination, tyranny, restrictions, bullies and cruelty. Liberals and conservatives both value this dimension in modern, western, secular, commercial societies. They define the oppressor differently, with liberals focusing on business and institutional sources of power and conservatives focusing on government and regulators. Libertarians value this dimension most highly. These first 3 sources of morality are more individual oriented, mediating the tensions between individuals and groups.

4. Group Loyalty

Clear commitment to the group. More than “limited liability”. Betrayal, in-group attachment, patriotism, nationalism, betrayal, self-sacrifice, us vs. them, tribe, religion, party, flag, clan, neighbors, family. Conservatives value this dimension very highly, with felt loyalties to several groups. Liberals value this dimension, but not nearly as highly; with a tendency to value the largest groups: nation, humanity, nature. The liberal focus on “diversity” and valuing others, outgroups and the “oppressed” is very different from the conservative worldview. Western, secular, commercial societies value this dimension less.

5. Authority/Respect

Larger groups require some degree of hierarchy. Leader and follower. This is a complement to the liberty/oppressor value. Respect for authority, leader, institution, rules, history. Safety, order, predictability. Obedience, deference, submission. Against subversion, revolution. This is the classic conservative value, supporting the known value/benefits of a given system against the potential value/risks of change. Modern, individualistic liberals tend to not value this dimension highly, instead choosing to “challenge authority”.

6. Purity/Sanctity

The sixth dimension differs from the first 5. It is not so clearly about managing the “individual to group” challenges. It focuses on the disgust/gag reflex to things or situations that are so threatening as to be beyond consideration. This takes place at both the practical and the abstract levels. Degradation, disgust, disease, infection, dirt, germs, contamination, carnality, body, sex. Piety, chastity, temperance, compliance, burning, cleanliness, food rules. Everyone has some sensitivity to this dimension, but conservatives have much higher concern. Research says that conservatives, on average, have a lower interest in new (unsafe, novel) activities or experiences. Moral values 4-6 retain higher priority outside of western, commercial, secular societies. Liberal references to purity may focus on things like the environment.

Basic References

https://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/study/jonathan-haidt-morality/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

https://www.wired.com/2012/10/the-psychology-of-liberals-and-conservatives/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAoY-PBhCNARIsABcz773DJzBnc5VoJf5iUksyynjWCWM-bcXuNVXNGat-dSIuvliFr7UOl9EaAh9zEALw_wcB

Applications

Haidt is a self-professed “liberal” who intuitively/instinctively rejected the “rational” morality theories he learned in graduate school in the 1980’s. During his early research on alternate approaches, he had the “aha” insights that 1) other cultures have very different moral values and that 2) moral/political views are intuitive and rationalized. He hoped/hopes that liberals can see that their more limited moral palate (3 items) is not the only one and that this difference between including or not including the other 3 bases is a huge insight, even if liberals choose to not value the other 3 dimensions. He analyzed national politics in each election cycle from 2000, highlighting the large advantage that Republican politicians have in monopolizing the 3 other dimensions. In 2016, he advised the Dems to fight against Trump on the “conservative” moral dimensions of loyalty (Putin?), authority/order (Trump chaos/revolution/policy changes), and purity (sex allegations) instead of policy positions or personal character.

How the Democrats Can Use Moral Foundations Theory Against Trump

Haidt collaborated with a CATO scholar to analyze the 2016 Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency, analyzing their supporters in terms of the Moral Foundations Theory.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10918164/donald-trump-morality

https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trump-supporters-think-about-morality-differently-other-voters-heres-how

Research and Critics

The Wiki post has some references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

The basic conclusions are supported, but all details are not. The 1 Care / 2 Fairness versus other dimensions emphasis between liberals and conservatives is supported. But, statistically, there may just be individual versus group moral foundations (2 dimensions versus 5-6).

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/03/15/do-liberals-and-conservatives-really-have-different-moral-foundations-differences-may-be-less-clear-cut-than-often-claimed/

Group? Which group? Small or large? In-group or out-group? Research is now focused on defining questions that clarify in-group versus out-group attraction and then, the difference between liberals versus conservatives, if any.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579908/full

Academics have been busy working on the details. One criticism is that the 5 or 6 dimensions were defined in an ad hoc manner, rather than part of an overall theory of how man evolved. One group has stepped up to propose a theory that is solely based upon the various forms of cooperation, resulting in 7 dimensions.

On the academic left, Haidt’s “moral equivalence” approach to the 3 modern, secular, liberal values and the 3 historic, religious, conservative values has been sharply criticized. An alternate view that highlights bias/bigotry, social dominance, right-wing authoritarianism, Schwartz Value Theory and Evolutionary/Coalitional Theory (ECT) has been proposed.

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/02/are-trump-supporters-evil-or-just-wrong-political-scientists-struggle-with-morality/

Summary

Haidt and his colleagues have defined 6 dimensions of moral thinking which underly modern political views that make sense based on evolution. The “west” could clearly learn something about the moral/political views of other societies that did not have the same historical evolution into a commercial/largely secular situation. Politicians could seek to more effectively target their messages to trigger all of these 6 values in their target audiences. Civic minded individuals could promote greater understanding of these insights to lessen the Manichaean “good versus evil” polarization we see in politics today.

Good News: US Economy Added 6 Million Jobs in 2021

Today’s news releases show 6.0M jobs added during 2021 according to the household survey and 6.5M jobs added according to the employer survey. The ADP employer jobs survey released this week showed 6.2M jobs added. The employer reported number of open jobs increased from 6.8M to 10.6M this year. Hence the total filled plus open jobs increased by 10.6M, from 149.3M to 159.6M, a truly incredible expansion of the US economy’s production potential and demand for labor. This is 1M more filled plus open jobs than the December, 2019 peak of 158.6M. Employers are clearly struggling to work this backlog down from the 10-11M range back to the pre-pandemic 6-7M level. This provides the demand side for another 8-12 months’ worth of 500K filled jobs added per month.

The 3 underlying measures use different definitions and survey methods, but in the long-run they generally agree.

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.htm#intro

The monthly changes are much less consistent. Much of the media highlighted that the employer survey data showed just 200K jobs added in December. The household survey indicated 600K jobs added, while ADP reported 900K jobs.

It’s best to look at all 3 measures to try to get a best estimate of the most recent changes. I see roughly 500K new jobs added each month from July through December. A flat number, not an increasing one. The first half of the year was probably adding a few more jobs each month, closer to 600K each.

https://adpemploymentreport.com/2021/December/NER/NER-December-2021.aspx

Look Past the “Spin”

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/biden-december-jobs-figure-unemployment-decline

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10379015/US-employment-report-misses-expectations-Just-199-000-jobs-added-December.html

 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2022/01/07/another_disastrous_jobs_report_lands_on_bidens_desk_560237.html

 

 

Good News: A Great Labor Market

Layoffs

From 2000-2009, the dynamic US labor market laid off workers at a consistent 2M per year rate. This declined a bit to 1.8M per year in the next decade. After the pandemic, the economy quickly returned to this 1.8M per year rate from July to December, 2020.

It has dropped and remained at a 1.4M per year rate at the end of 2021, fully 30% lower than its normal level. Good news, indeed.

Unemployment Claims

Historically, the US economy generated 350,000 new unemployment claims each week. This measure declined slowly after the Great Recession, reaching a nice 300,000 level in 2014. It slowly declined to a record low of 205,000 in Feb, 2020. The disruption rate dropped back down to the very high but stable 800,000 level from Aug, 2020 through Apr, 2021. In the last 8 months the rate has dropped very quickly back down to the record low 200,000 level!

Cumulative individuals claiming unemployment benefits has historically varied with the business cycle. We can see the increase from 2M to 4M at the turn of the century. The “Great Recession” had a greater negative impact, driving this number from 2M – 4M – 7M. This number fell throughout the extended business cycle recovery period, breaching 2M in Feb, 2017 and reaching a low of 1.7M in Feb, 2020. The unemployed number reached a full order of magnitude higher at 23M during the pandemic, then dropping to 13M in Sep, 2020 and 4M in Mar, 2021 and 2M in Nov, 2021 and finally equaling the record low in December, 2021 at 1.7M. This is great news!

Unemployment Rate

The unemployment rate has reached 4.2% and will return to its historical low of 3.5% in the next 4-6 months.

Minority Unemployment Rate

African-American unemployment was typically in the 8-10% range. It was driven down to the 5-6% level after the Great Recession during the extended business cycle expansion period. The rate is now below 7% and falling.

Hispanic American unemployment averaged 5-7% in the 2000’s. It spiked after the Great Recession to 13%, then slowly declined to 4.3%. It has since recovered to 5.2% and is dropping quickly.

Broadly Defined Unemployment

Broader definitions of unemployment show the same swift recovery from the pandemic situation.

Labor Force Participation

Labor force participation among the core 25-55 year age group reached an historic, and possibly unsustainable high of 83% in late 2019. It stayed around 81% at the end of 2020 and has since improved to 81.8%. This is one of the few labor market indicators that clearly shows that we have NOT “fully recovered”. There is 1% of the population waiting to be attracted back into the labor force.

Quits Rate

The voluntary “quit” rate has doubled since the good side of the “Great Recession”. It is 50% higher than during the very favorable labor market of 2018-2020. Employees are confident that they can leave their current employer and find another position quickly.

Job Openings

This is the CRAZY positive labor market chart. Historically, we see 3-5M job openings. Expansion to 6M in 2016-17 as the post Great Recession recovery faced its “end”. But, the expansion continued even further, with 7M open positions available in 2018-20. The economy recovered to 6.8M open positions in Dec, 2020. This figure has since climbed to an incredible 11M open positions, more than double the historic norm.

This is truly a “good news” labor market!

Good News: Minimum Wage Continues to Increase

States and cities have been increasing their minimum wages annually since before the pandemic struck in early 2020 and have set higher rates for 2022.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/31/politics/minimum-wage-increase-2022-15-dollars/index.html

https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/minimum-wage-by-state/

Public Policy is More Favorable

Historically, corporations and supporters have highlighted the negative impacts of small/large and narrow/broad minimum wage increases (2019 example).

https://fee.org/articles/support-for-15-minimum-wage-plummets-when-americans-are-told-its-economic-impact/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAlMCOBhCZARIsANLid6ZmQXEJ_4xmXTiQ3n16kSGLLqLvgeS_hdpoSlXwUR_oD-_b9NK3AfcaAtBvEALw_wcB

Historically, economists generally emphasized the negative short-term and long-term impacts of significantly higher, broadly applied minimum wage increases. Studies in the 1990’s indicated that the negative effects of moderate minimum wage increases could be relatively small, so economists’ articles have been more balanced in the past 3 decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

Some more liberal leaning economists have been actively suppporting minimum wage increases as the US minimum wage has continued to decline on a real, after inflation basis, US minimums have fallen compared with other developed countries and the US distribution of income has become more unequal and poverty rates have not fallen despite US economic progress.

Some economists even point to the self-serving benefits of higher minimum wages for corporations, including greater productivity, innovation and retention.

There does not appear to be widespread business or general public support for Biden’s across the board $15 per hour minimum wage proposal.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-economists-see-bidens-15-wage-proposal

Biden has been able to increase minimum wages on government contracts.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/biden-orders-15-minimum-wage-on-federal-contracts-by-march?context=article-related

But, large corporations are increasing their own minimum wages and trying to position themselves as supportive of “common sense” public policy changes that do not impact themselves very much. Some critics say that this is because large corporations can absorb higher minimum wages through their economies of scale and pricing power, while smaller businesses cannot and will go out of business, resulting in further growth of power for large businesses.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/02/26/big-business-behind-push-for-15-minimum-wage-column/4545386001/

Surprisingly, recent survey research indicates that many small businesses also do not stridently oppose modest minimum wage increases.

https://www.verizon.com/business/small-business-essentials/resources/most-small-businesses-support-minimum-wage-hikes/

Corporate Minimum Wage Increases

Perhaps more importantly, large corporations in a variety of industries have voluntarily increased their minimum wages from the $12/hour to the $15/hour plus range in the last 2 years. (Out of self interest).

Banking

https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fifth-third-is-latest-bank-to-raise-its-minimum-wage

https://www.yahoo.com/now/wells-fargo-raises-minimum-wage-215921054.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/01/25/santander-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-15-per-hour.html

Health Care

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cdb8465e-3eaf-45aa-8d9d-e7946210ba3a#:~:text=Walgreens%20is%20the%20latest%20retail,more%20workers%20with%20larger%20wages.

https://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-cigna-tax-benefits-20180131-story.html

Fast Food

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/578847-starbucks-to-raise-us-minimum-wage-to-15-by-next?rl=1

https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-raises-minimum-wage-aims-average-15-per-hour-2021-5

https://www.restaurantdive.com/news/taco-bell-to-raise-average-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour-by-2024/611490/

Various Industries

https://qz.com/2060508/what-amazons-18-average-hourly-wage-means-for-other-employers/

https://www.masslive.com/business/2021/01/wayfair-sets-15-minimum-wage-for-all-us-workers.html

Retailers

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/971338686/costco-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-16-an-hour-this-isnt-altruism

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/17/target-raises-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour-months-before-its-deadline.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/971338686/costco-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-16-an-hour-this-isnt-altruism

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/14/sams-club-raises-minimum-wage-to-15-as-tight-labor-market-continues.html#:~:text=Sam%27s%20Club%20said%20Tuesday%20that,than%20its%20parent%20company%2C%20Walmart.

https://www.businessinsider.com/under-armour-minimum-wage-us-canadian-labor-shortage-2021-5

Summary

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25909-you-don-t-need-a-weatherman-to-know-which-way-the

Wages for less skilled and less experienced positions are increasing – dramatically – in the USA – in the last 5 years, especially since the pandemic reduced the supply of labor, and going forward. Larger companies have seen the costs of higher turnover and decided that they are going to offer relatively higher wages and find ways to generate enough economic value added to justify these marginal (incremental) investments. Politicians in left-leaning and centrist areas have pushed through higher minimum wages. Lower experience and lower skilled workers are able to take advantage of this situation. This is “good news” for these individuals. It is also “good news” for the economy because it has prompted firms to find ways to restructure work, processes, tools, technology, etc. to add more value from each employee.

Good News: Lawyers Have Less Power in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_kill_all_the_lawyers

The US population has doubled from 1960-2020, so the share of new lawyers remains roughly at the same percentage, despite the greatly increased complexity of modern business, communications, intellectual property and society. This ratio is now way down from the 2000’s when it was unusually elevated.

Supply and demand drove lower salaries and higher unemployment after 2010.

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/08/law-schools-are-building-another-giant-lawyer-bubble-destined-to-burst-in-the-legal-job-market/

Starting salaries at major law firms have always been attractive to undergraduates. The distribution of starting salaries shows that the legal profession is divided between those in the top one-fourth and all of the rest. The median starting salary at $100K for 7 years of college education looks more like an engineer, pharmacist, actuary, data scientist, financial analyst or market researcher than a world changing persuader.

The percentage of US congress reps with a legal background has declined decade after decade.

Lawyers occupy 9% of CEO roles; far less than their MBA competitors.

https://hbr.org/2017/08/do-lawyers-make-better-ceos-than-mbas

In general, public opinion has less and less support for the “advocate” model of legal representation.

https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/devils-advocate-the-new-age-sophists-bf25c928eefdhttps:/

New lawyer debt is at a record high level ($150K). (page 27).

The legal profession remains 86% white, far removed from the American population distribution. (page 34).

Legal wage growth accelerated in the “oughts” and then rose by less than inflation in the teens (page 47).

The number of law school applicants dropped nearly in half from 2004 to 2015, from 101,000 to 54,000. (page 55).

Despite the great reduction in new law school entrants, the bar exam pass rate has declined from 80% to 70%. (page 80).

The highest skilled lawyers remain in high demand in the US, earning $120-180K for starting salaries. They are typically not “changing the world”. But, they are helping the owners of great wealth to maintain and improve their positions. As an accountant, engaged to measure and advise, I appreciate this value-added role in society.

Hey Joe, Hey Joe … Reverse the Trump Tariffs

There are few policy choices that have 90-95% positive results compared with 5-10% negative results. Cutting international trade tariffs is one of those “rare birds”.

President Trump “delivered” on his 2016 campaign promises regarding trade deals. He unilaterally increased tariffs on imported aluminum, steel and manufactured goods from China and the rest of the world, including our trade and military allies. As with most “trade killers” (which used to be a minority Democratic party position), he claimed that this would save or restore American jobs. As usual, it had no measurable positive effect. He also claimed that this would lead to a renaissance in American manufacturing. Didn’t happen. He claimed that these actions would make America more self-sufficient in critical military and economic areas. Didn’t happen. Note pandemic issues. Finally, he claimed that these actions would form the basis for “new and improved” trade deals to replace the “awful” deals negotiated by Democrats and Republicans alike for 70 years in the post- WWII era. NAFTA 2 was concluded with minor changes. Small China commitments were obtained to buy things China wanted to buy. But, mostly the response was “HUGE” retaliatory tariffs from China and our allies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/27/1054293073/whiskey-distilleries-europe-tariffs-lift

The “root cause” of the failed results in this situation, and in most other trade fights, is a logical / intellectual error. Proponents of trade restrictions believe that bilateral trade negotiations are a simple “win/lose” game. A real estate deal is a simple “win/lose” game. Bilateral trade deals are more complex. There are many winners and losers in both countries, some direct and some indirect. Higher tariffs or trade restrictions benefit the importing country’s manufacturers and their employees. However, these tariffs typically result in much higher prices for the importing country’s consumers, so the net effect for the importing country is negative. Unfortunately, bilateral trade deals or actions often don’t even help the importing country’s producers. Whatever country is “next most” competitive takes the place of the target country which has been made less competitive by the new tariffs. In the case where a country holds a large share of the global market, neither the “next best” country, nor the domestic producers benefit. The “target” country has such a strong competitive, cost, price advantage that even with added tariffs they are the preferred supplier. This is a very disappointing result for those who wish to take direct action to “save jobs”, but global markets truly matter.

Columnists, journalists and politicians say that Joe can’t reverse the tariffs for political reasons. The American voting public is too unsophisticated to understand complex trade logic. Given Trump’s framing of his actions, this will look like a capitulation to China. The progressive left doesn’t believe in “free” international trade, which undercuts worker’s pay and the environment. American “labor” is a required part of the Democratic Party coalition and opposes “free” trade. Consumers do not link tariffs to goods inflation. American business and agriculture are fully committed to the Republican Party, so will not repay beneficial actions.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/30/removing-us-china-trade-tariffs-would-ease-inflation-jacob-lew.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/03/politics/global-supply-chain-collapse-biden-tariffs/index.html

The American people elect leaders (of either party) to lead. Step up. The benefits of “free trade” are well known, well documented and supported by 90% of professional economists of both parties. Assign Kamala Harris, Pette Buttigieg and Jared Kushner (just kidding) to develop the communications plan for this policy decision.

The American People Benefit Directly: Taxes, Inflation and Jobs

Tariffs are simply taxes with a longer name. Exporters pay a small share, less than one-third of the total. Importing firms pay a slightly larger share, again less than one-third of the total. Consumers typically pay more than one-half of the tariffs in the form of higher prices. This is a tax, plain and simple. Estimates of the taxes paid by Americans for the Trump Tariffs range from $50-80B.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-total-cost-of-tariffs/

Tariffs provide importers with an excuse, reason, justification to increase prices. This is contributing to the current round of inflation at a level last seen in the 1980s. American consumers are paying $700 annually for these taxes.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html

Tariffs are imposed to “save jobs”, but the “indirect” impact is usually larger than the “direct” impact. Domestic manufacturers who use imported products find their costs to be higher and some become uncompetitive. Domestic retailers who now sell more expensive products find their sales lower and reduce their work force accordingly. Target countries impose retaliatory tariffs on domestic export products. This is the main source of job losses. The Trump Tariffs are estimated to have cost Americans 250,000 jobs.

https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/83746

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html

Make American Businesses More Competitive Globally

American businesses pay one-fifth to one-third of the $80B of annual tariffs imposed. This drops straight to the bottom-line. Reduced profits result in reduced capital investments, R&D, product innovation and new markets.

Tariff administration has an overhead cost and it distracts supply chain, logistics and international trade staff from higher value added work.

Tariffs require profit-maximizing firms to accelerate their consideration of import sourcing and domestic production options. Some of this has a minor impact. Some of this activity displaces other higher value-added sourcing projects.

One estimate indicated that 8% of stock market value was destroyed by the Trump Tariffs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/05/20/trumps-tariffs-were-much-more-damaging-than-thought/?sh=527605ba65bd

Sharply higher tariffs disrupt existing supply chain relationships and remove some sources as economically feasible sources. In a time of supply chain challenges, tariff make a bad situation even worse.

Farmers were most negatively impacted by the Trump Tariffs. Trump provided temporary subsidies to offset some of the pain, but farmers complained that they were seeing decades old trade lanes being permanently disrupted. Reduced tariffs and reduced retaliatory tariffs might restore these natural trade lanes.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/27/1054293073/whiskey-distilleries-europe-tariffs-lift

Resume American Trade Leadership that Benefits America

Revert to the 70 year bipartisan American “free trade” strategy that delivered tremendous value for the US and the world. US exports tripled from 4% of GDP in 1955 to 12% in 2007 forward.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B020RE1Q156NBEA

Restore positive relationships with our historic trading partners.

Re-engage in leadership at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and regional agreements like the Asian Pacific Trade Agreement to establish beneficial trade rules for services and intellectual property.

Conclusion

Reversing the Trump Tariffs can create 250,000 jobs, reverse an $80B consumer tax increase, help American manufacturers and farmers to compete globally, improve supply chain performance, and help the U.S. to craft international trade deals that greatly benefit a country that mostly provides “world class” services.