What's new

Factories May Be Leaving China, but Trade Ties Are Stronger Than They Seem

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
65,191
Reaction score
-55
Country
China
Location
China

Factories May Be Leaving China, but Trade Ties Are Stronger Than They Seem

The United States is trying to lessen its dependence on Chinese goods, but research is showing how tough it is to truly alter global supply chains.

A worker in a white shirt and hat looking down at a machine making semiconductor chips.

The United States has decreased its import of goods directly from China, but they are being funneled in through other routes.Credit...Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By Ana Swanson and Jeanna Smialek

Published Aug. 29, 2023Updated Aug. 31, 2023

The United States has spent the past five years pushing to reduce its reliance on China for computer chips, solar panels and various consumer imports amid growing concern over Beijing’s security threats, human rights record and dominance of critical industries.

But even as policymakers and corporate executives look for ways to cut ties with China, a growing body of evidence suggests that the world’s largest economies remain deeply intertwined as Chinese products make their way to America through other countries. New and forthcoming economic papers call into question whether the United States has actually lessened its reliance on China — and what a recent reshuffling of trade relationships means for the global economy and American consumers.

Changes to global manufacturing and supply chains are still unfolding, as both punishing tariffs imposed by the administration of former President Donald J. Trump and tougher restrictions on the sale of technology to China imposed by the Biden administration play out.

The key architect of the latest restrictions — Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary — is meeting with top Chinese officials in Beijing and Shanghai this week, a visit that underscores the challenge facing the United States as it seeks to reduce how much it depends on China when the countries’ economies share so many ties.

These reworked trade rules, along with other economic changes, have caused China’s share of imports into the United States to fall as the share of imports from other low-cost countries like Vietnam and Mexico have climbed. The Biden administration has also pumped up incentives for producing semiconductors, electric cars and solar panels domestically, and manufacturing construction in the United States has been rising quickly.

But new research discussed at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual conference at Jackson Hole in Wyoming on Saturday found that while global trade patterns have reshuffled, American supply chains have remained very reliant on Chinese production — just not as directly.

In their paper, the economists Laura Alfaro at Harvard Business School and Davin Chor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth wrote that China’s share of U.S. imports fell to about 17 percent in 2022 after peaking at about 22 percent in 2017, as the country accounted for a smaller share of America’s imports in categories like machinery, footwear and telephone sets. As that happened, places like Vietnam gained ground — supplying the United States with more apparel and textiles — while neighbors like Mexico began sending more car parts, glass, iron and steel.

American Imports Shift Away From China

微信图片_20230901122956.png

Change in the share of U.S. imports coming from each area between 2017 and 2022
Percentage points
Source: Analysis of Comtrade data by Laura Alfaro and Davin Chor
By The New York Times

That would seem to be a sign that the United States is lessening its reliance on China. But there’s a hitch: Both Mexico and Vietnam have themselves been importing more products from China, and Chinese direct investment into those countries has surged, indicating that Chinese firms are setting up more factories there.

The trends suggest that firms may simply be moving the last steps in their lengthy supply chains out of China, and that some companies are using countries like Vietnam or Mexico as staging areas to send goods that are still partly or largely made in China into the United States.

While proponents of decoupling argue that any move away from China may be a good thing, the reshuffling appears to have other consequences. The paper finds that shifting supply chains are also associated with higher prices for goods.

A drop of five percentage points in the share of imports coming from China may have pushed prices on Vietnamese imports up 9.8 percent and Mexican imports up 3.2 percent, based on the authors’ calculations. While more research is needed, the effect could be slightly contributing to consumer inflation, they say.

“That is our first caution — this is likely to have cost effects — and the second caution is that it is unlikely to diminish dependence” on China, Ms. Alfaro said in an interview.

The research echoes findings from a forthcoming paper by Caroline Freund of the University of California, San Diego, and economists at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which examined how trade in specific imports from China had changed since Mr. Trump began imposing tariffs on them.

That paper found that tariffs had a substantial impact on trade, reducing U.S. imports of the goods that were subject to the levies, even as the absolute value of U.S. trade with China continued to rise.
The economies that were able to capture the market share lost by China were those that already specialized in making the products that were subject to tariffs, like electronics or chemicals, as well as locations that were deeply integrated into China’s supply chains and had a lot of trade back and forth with China, Ms. Freund said. They included Vietnam, Mexico and Taiwan.

“They’re also increasing imports from China, precisely in those products that they’re exporting to the U.S.,” she said.

What this all means for efforts to bring manufacturing back to the United States is unclear. The researchers come to different conclusions about how much that trend is occurring.

Still, both sets of researchers — as well as other economists at Jackson Hole, the Fed’s most closely watched annual conference — pushed back on the idea that these supply-chain shifts meant that global trade overall was retrenching, or that the world was becoming less interconnected.

The pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and tensions between the United States and China have prompted some analysts to speculate that the world may turning away from globalization, but economists say that trend is not really borne out in the data.

“We don’t see de-globalization at a macro level,” Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director general of the World Trade Organization, said during a panel at the Jackson Hole symposium. But she pointed to what she characterized as a worrying change in expectations.

“Rhetoric on de-globalization is taking hold, and that feeds into the political tensions and then into the policymaking,” she said. “My fear is that rhetoric might turn into reality and we might see this shift in investment patterns.”

Others at Jackson Hole warned of other consequences, such as product shortages.

A move toward production domestically or in only closely allied countries could “imply new supply constraints, especially if trade fragmentation accelerates before the domestic supply base has been rebuilt,” Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, said in a speech on Friday.

Global supply chains tend to change slowly, because it takes time for companies to plan, invest in and construct new factories. Economists are continuing to track current changes to global sourcing.
Given growing geopolitical tensions with China as well as more recent troubles in the country’s economy, further shifts in global supply chains may be unavoidable.

One question for economists now, Ms. Alfaro said, is whether the economic benefits from moving factories back to the United States or other friendly countries — like innovation in the U.S. manufacturing sector — will ultimately outweigh the costs of the strategy, for example, the higher prices paid by consumers.

And separately, Ms. Freund said she believed the costs of reshoring had been “really under considered” by the government and others.

The typical narrative was that “we’re going to bring it all back and we’re going to have all these jobs and it’s all going to be hunky-dory, but, in fact, it’s going to be extremely costly to do that,” she said. “Part of the reason we had such low inflation in the past was because we were bringing in lower-cost goods and improving productivity through globalization.”

 
It's funny NYC didn't mention the domination of Windows OS in PC market.

As well as Intel, AMD, and nVidia.

To encourage other countries, like China, Germany, Japan, etc to develop their own PC standard.

Are we being fooled?

Is there really a danger over global supply chains?
 
And trade ties mean shit without order
 
biggest mistake the West made at start of the century was to build one single source of cheap goods

in Dec 2001 it was decided that West needs to have cheap goods from one source- China

China was admitted into the WTO in Dec 2001

China then started making goods and soon enough started copying and doing cheap under hand tactics and abusing the trade agreements

since they didnt actually have any core technologies to export it was mainly fake and counterfeit goods

they got too big for their shoes and they started to kill people in Xingking, HK and Tibet

then they started exporting viruses like COVID and after that

since then the West has started to rely less in China and Chinese economy has been in tatters

Vietnam and Mexico are much more honest trade partners and sourcing from those nations is covered by regulations to ensures no Chinese enterprises are involved

Chinese are not that clever to set up factories in Vietnam and Mexico and somehow West doesnt know and keeps sourcing from Chinese manufacturers

Chinas days are numbered and the next few years will show how badly they fall
 
biggest mistake the West made at start of the century was to build one single source of cheap goods

in Dec 2001 it was decided that West needs to have cheap goods from one source- China

China was admitted into the WTO in Dec 2001

China then started making goods and soon enough started copying and doing cheap under hand tactics and abusing the trade agreements

since they didnt actually have any core technologies to export it was mainly fake and counterfeit goods

they got too big for their shoes and they started to kill people in Xingking, HK and Tibet

then they started exporting viruses like COVID and after that

since then the West has started to rely less in China and Chinese economy has been in tatters

Vietnam and Mexico are much more honest trade partners and sourcing from those nations is covered by regulations to ensures no Chinese enterprises are involved

Chinese are not that clever to set up factories in Vietnam and Mexico and somehow West doesnt know and keeps sourcing from Chinese manufacturers

Chinas days are numbered and the next few years will show how badly they fall

What if I gave you another narrative. The West did not invest in China first, it was the Overseas Chinese from HK, Taiwan and SEA, they wanted cheap labour and new markets. Due to cultural affinities, they invested in their hometowns and the SEZs. This initial investment created some small wealth for some ppl. The West saw this potential market to exploit and started investing in China both for the market and also for cheaper supply chain. Initially, the Chinese copied, then they started to improve what they copied, and 20 years later when there were nothing much to copy anymore, you create new technologies, 5G, Quantum tech, batteries, renewables and UHV. All next generation key technologies. Now, with inflation soaring in the West due to over printing, reckless wars killing millions and deindustrialization. US can only depend on their soft export, IPs and cultural exports including consoomer goods. The Chinese having been exporting for decades, decide to create a new trading system, using both dollars and rmb and create a dual ciculation economy, the main driver of the exonomy would be the domestic market, the largest in the world. This requires import substitution through competition with foreign brands, if they survive it, they can expand anywhere globally, since the most competitive market is CHINA. The best survive. To sustain our industrialization, we need raw materials, and the West handed us Russsia on a silver platter. History is being made as we speak.
 

Factories May Be Leaving China, but Trade Ties Are Stronger Than They Seem

The United States is trying to lessen its dependence on Chinese goods, but research is showing how tough it is to truly alter global supply chains.

A worker in a white shirt and hat looking down at a machine making semiconductor chips.

The United States has decreased its import of goods directly from China, but they are being funneled in through other routes.Credit...Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By Ana Swanson and Jeanna Smialek

Published Aug. 29, 2023Updated Aug. 31, 2023

The United States has spent the past five years pushing to reduce its reliance on China for computer chips, solar panels and various consumer imports amid growing concern over Beijing’s security threats, human rights record and dominance of critical industries.

But even as policymakers and corporate executives look for ways to cut ties with China, a growing body of evidence suggests that the world’s largest economies remain deeply intertwined as Chinese products make their way to America through other countries. New and forthcoming economic papers call into question whether the United States has actually lessened its reliance on China — and what a recent reshuffling of trade relationships means for the global economy and American consumers.

Changes to global manufacturing and supply chains are still unfolding, as both punishing tariffs imposed by the administration of former President Donald J. Trump and tougher restrictions on the sale of technology to China imposed by the Biden administration play out.

The key architect of the latest restrictions — Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary — is meeting with top Chinese officials in Beijing and Shanghai this week, a visit that underscores the challenge facing the United States as it seeks to reduce how much it depends on China when the countries’ economies share so many ties.

These reworked trade rules, along with other economic changes, have caused China’s share of imports into the United States to fall as the share of imports from other low-cost countries like Vietnam and Mexico have climbed. The Biden administration has also pumped up incentives for producing semiconductors, electric cars and solar panels domestically, and manufacturing construction in the United States has been rising quickly.

But new research discussed at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual conference at Jackson Hole in Wyoming on Saturday found that while global trade patterns have reshuffled, American supply chains have remained very reliant on Chinese production — just not as directly.

In their paper, the economists Laura Alfaro at Harvard Business School and Davin Chor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth wrote that China’s share of U.S. imports fell to about 17 percent in 2022 after peaking at about 22 percent in 2017, as the country accounted for a smaller share of America’s imports in categories like machinery, footwear and telephone sets. As that happened, places like Vietnam gained ground — supplying the United States with more apparel and textiles — while neighbors like Mexico began sending more car parts, glass, iron and steel.

American Imports Shift Away From China

View attachment 950235
Change in the share of U.S. imports coming from each area between 2017 and 2022
Percentage points
Source: Analysis of Comtrade data by Laura Alfaro and Davin Chor
By The New York Times

That would seem to be a sign that the United States is lessening its reliance on China. But there’s a hitch: Both Mexico and Vietnam have themselves been importing more products from China, and Chinese direct investment into those countries has surged, indicating that Chinese firms are setting up more factories there.

The trends suggest that firms may simply be moving the last steps in their lengthy supply chains out of China, and that some companies are using countries like Vietnam or Mexico as staging areas to send goods that are still partly or largely made in China into the United States.

While proponents of decoupling argue that any move away from China may be a good thing, the reshuffling appears to have other consequences. The paper finds that shifting supply chains are also associated with higher prices for goods.

A drop of five percentage points in the share of imports coming from China may have pushed prices on Vietnamese imports up 9.8 percent and Mexican imports up 3.2 percent, based on the authors’ calculations. While more research is needed, the effect could be slightly contributing to consumer inflation, they say.

“That is our first caution — this is likely to have cost effects — and the second caution is that it is unlikely to diminish dependence” on China, Ms. Alfaro said in an interview.

The research echoes findings from a forthcoming paper by Caroline Freund of the University of California, San Diego, and economists at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which examined how trade in specific imports from China had changed since Mr. Trump began imposing tariffs on them.

That paper found that tariffs had a substantial impact on trade, reducing U.S. imports of the goods that were subject to the levies, even as the absolute value of U.S. trade with China continued to rise.
The economies that were able to capture the market share lost by China were those that already specialized in making the products that were subject to tariffs, like electronics or chemicals, as well as locations that were deeply integrated into China’s supply chains and had a lot of trade back and forth with China, Ms. Freund said. They included Vietnam, Mexico and Taiwan.

“They’re also increasing imports from China, precisely in those products that they’re exporting to the U.S.,” she said.

What this all means for efforts to bring manufacturing back to the United States is unclear. The researchers come to different conclusions about how much that trend is occurring.

Still, both sets of researchers — as well as other economists at Jackson Hole, the Fed’s most closely watched annual conference — pushed back on the idea that these supply-chain shifts meant that global trade overall was retrenching, or that the world was becoming less interconnected.

The pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and tensions between the United States and China have prompted some analysts to speculate that the world may turning away from globalization, but economists say that trend is not really borne out in the data.

“We don’t see de-globalization at a macro level,” Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director general of the World Trade Organization, said during a panel at the Jackson Hole symposium. But she pointed to what she characterized as a worrying change in expectations.

“Rhetoric on de-globalization is taking hold, and that feeds into the political tensions and then into the policymaking,” she said. “My fear is that rhetoric might turn into reality and we might see this shift in investment patterns.”

Others at Jackson Hole warned of other consequences, such as product shortages.

A move toward production domestically or in only closely allied countries could “imply new supply constraints, especially if trade fragmentation accelerates before the domestic supply base has been rebuilt,” Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, said in a speech on Friday.

Global supply chains tend to change slowly, because it takes time for companies to plan, invest in and construct new factories. Economists are continuing to track current changes to global sourcing.
Given growing geopolitical tensions with China as well as more recent troubles in the country’s economy, further shifts in global supply chains may be unavoidable.

One question for economists now, Ms. Alfaro said, is whether the economic benefits from moving factories back to the United States or other friendly countries — like innovation in the U.S. manufacturing sector — will ultimately outweigh the costs of the strategy, for example, the higher prices paid by consumers.

And separately, Ms. Freund said she believed the costs of reshoring had been “really under considered” by the government and others.

The typical narrative was that “we’re going to bring it all back and we’re going to have all these jobs and it’s all going to be hunky-dory, but, in fact, it’s going to be extremely costly to do that,” she said. “Part of the reason we had such low inflation in the past was because we were bringing in lower-cost goods and improving productivity through globalization.”




This was exactly what I predicted 5 years ago. That's the reason Chinese trade figures are still growing and surplus is now at an unhealthily high level. The Viets, Mexicans are just buying Chinese components and reassembling, some even just get relabelled offshore, without even stepping foot on their territories. I have seen my cousin relabelled Chinese machinery to Made in Malaysia offshore in the Malacca straits, then relabelled the machine to some western sounding name for export. Then they just pay some small feesbto the local customs to create some documentation.

My parents used to say, as long as China is peaceful and intact, we Chinese can survive anything. We will find ingenious ways to bypass shit. How do you think fentanyl still gets exported to US? Look at Huawei! The cost of those tariffs are borne by US consoomers and it only increases their inflation rate. The ones suffering are the Muricans. Tariffs don't work. It will only work if manufacturing returns to America but it isn't, it is going to Vietnam and Mexico.
 
Did you buy any VF shares? You are getting cuckoo noe.
Yes, actually I did, when it was around $17 sold it when it hit $35. And slapping myself hard when it hit $85.

As I said before, this stock is mostly going to be around $30, which is what it is now.
 
biggest mistake the West made at start of the century was to build one single source of cheap goods

in Dec 2001 it was decided that West needs to have cheap goods from one source- China

China was admitted into the WTO in Dec 2001

China then started making goods and soon enough started copying and doing cheap under hand tactics and abusing the trade agreements

since they didnt actually have any core technologies to export it was mainly fake and counterfeit goods

they got too big for their shoes and they started to kill people in Xingking, HK and Tibet

then they started exporting viruses like COVID and after that

since then the West has started to rely less in China and Chinese economy has been in tatters

Vietnam and Mexico are much more honest trade partners and sourcing from those nations is covered by regulations to ensures no Chinese enterprises are involved

Chinese are not that clever to set up factories in Vietnam and Mexico and somehow West doesnt know and keeps sourcing from Chinese manufacturers

Chinas days are numbered and the next few years will show how badly they fall

That is not true.

Single source of cheap good is the effect of China development and economy plan by China itself.

The West is just using it for their own benefit and profit.

The ones that truly help China build its economy are Taiwan, HK, and Overseas Chinese.

Since decades ago, the West is the biggest major source of disturbing China development and economic growth.

Well, you just need to read the news from decades ago and you know what I say is right.

Up to today, the West is still China biggest troublemaker.
 
Yes, actually I did, when it was around $17 sold it when it hit $35. And slapping myself hard when it hit $85.

As I said before, this stock is mostly going to be around $30, which is what it is now.

Eh, your tone is different now. I thought you were very confident on it's valuation being bigger than BYD and Ford. Lolol
 
Eh, your tone is different now. I thought you were very confident on it's valuation being bigger than BYD and Ford. Lolol
First my tone was not different.

This is what I said 2 weeks ago on Aug 24

Well, that's market fluctuations. I mean, those regular spectator trying to get into the game and going after what share they can. There are more demand of the stock than people are buying, hence the price.

A modest estimation on this share is about 25-30/share, again, as with my previous assessment, I would look about another month unless I am really in this spectator mood and fancy a gamble.

Second, I never said it worth more than BYD or Ford show me where I said Vinfast is bigger than BYD and Ford?, I said I would not bet against a company that have massive money backing and hence I will not short them AT THE TIME OF IPO. I think you mistook me with someone else.

If you see things differently, then that's you, not me
 

Back
Top Bottom