pull down to refresh

No White House in my lifetime has been a fount of economic wisdom, and the Donald Trump 2.0 version is taking its place in the Pantheon of economic illiteracy. The latest salvo came from President Trump’s so-called trade guru Peter Navarro who said the following about the massive BMW plant located in Spartanburg, South Carolina:
This business model where BMW and Mercedes come into Spartanburg, South Carolina, and have us assemble German engines and Austrian transmissions. That doesn’t work for America. It’s bad for our economics. It’s bad for our national security.
On its face, this is a stunning thing for a presidential adviser to claim, but that is the mentality that seems to have permeated both the White House and much of the so-called MAGA movement. Taking Navarro’s statements at face value, one would have to conclude that any kind of foreign investment in the US is a bad thing that should be outlawed.
However, Navarro’s statements plus explanations about the inflow of foreign capital to the US should be further explained, as he has raised some important issues. While he well may fall victim in the future to Trump’s erratic temperament and be unceremoniously fired, we should take a close look at his way of thinking, as he seems to have Trump’s ear….
Austrian economics emphasizes the development of structures of production that are not distorted by central bank-fueled credit expansions and other financial tricks, creating unsustainable development that ultimately will lead to a crisis and economic downturn. It does not matter if sustainable development is financed via capital inflows from abroad or domestic savings—as long as that development reflects consumer choices.
Given the profitability of the BMW plant in South Carolina, one can say it is a good thing for our economy and Germany’s economy as well. Contra Navarro, foreign economies do not thrive because the US economy is doing poorly or vice versa. Trade is not a negative-sum or even zero-sum activity, despite what one might hear from the White House. As Murray Rothbard has written:
The free market and the free price system make goods from around the world available to consumers. The free market also gives the largest possible scope to entrepreneurs, who risk capital to allocate resources so as to satisfy the future desires of the mass of consumers as efficiently as possible. Saving and investment can then develop capital goods and increase the productivity and wages of workers, thereby increasing their standard of living. The free competitive market also rewards and stimulates technological innovation that allows the innovator to get a head start in satisfying consumer wants in new and creative ways.
Could this be the reason that Musk is calling Navarro a retard? Musk realizes that the only reason for capital investment is to produce goods that satisfy consumers, no matter how far upstream from the consumer the production of goods happens. Higher order capital goods usually make higher order production goods far upstream of the final consumer good being produced. So, any extension of higher order goods, if done for the consumer’s satisfaction is a good investment, unless it has been distorted by fiddling with interest rates and other determinants of capital investment decisions. Is Musk right about Navarro, if not how is he mistaken?
The Musk Navarro thing is kayfabe, highlighting that Tesla has the most American supply chain.
Navarro hasn't said anything negative about foreign investment, Trump touts investments by Saudi, TSM, Softbank etc...
Navarro cited the German car factories in SC are assembly points, not true factories. Tesla, even being the most American car company, still has reliance on foreign supply chains. This is a national security problem.
There is also no free market to compare to when supply chains span multiple non-free market currencies.
In typical Mises fashion the author is a retard.
reply
Do you think that the rancor is being urged along by the Mockingbird Media? That would make sense to me because Navarro is an economist that specializes in international trade. Navarro saying something like that is either a misquote or taken out of context in a different conversation. It is hard to believe either the Mises people or Navarro would think this is true.
reply
Yes they absolutely troll the media, they openly talk about trolling the media. Trump is where he is because he's a media king and leading up to 16 caught them off guard by wielding the regimes own media against them. Its been an unmasked psyop ever since.
Bannon is his right hand in that, and Navarro is an extension on Bannon.
reply
I have to agree that Trump is the king of trolls!! I don’t think I have ever seen someone better at trolling the Establishment. I wonder if he is the one coming up with all of this trollers, or he has a whole large crew working on it.
reply
Word is he does his own speech writing, tweeting, and weaves the narrative... he's also known to consume a lot of media and is constantly surrounded by people from whom he weighs input. I think that's his gift, to calibrate against lots of input and cut it down through BS.
reply
It is also rumored that Trump gets by on about 2-4 hours of sleep per night. That would definitely help out if he has to consume the current news and information. I would say he probably has a pretty good BS meter, too. He also has a really good BS cutter.
I think Musk is right about Navarro. From what I've seen, I can only conclude that Navarro wants the US to become 100% autarkic. It's both unrealistic, and blatantly ahistorical to think a country can thrive under an autarkic regime. The closest thing to an autarky is North Korea, and how's that working out for them?
reply
Autarky is very different for large diverse economies. For instance, the Earth is in a state of autarky with respect to the rest of the universe.
reply
Yes, but autarky depend upon whether the economy has all of the necessary inputs to all of the various goods at every order of production. Does any complex economy have all of the various inputs within itself to attain autarky? This is one thing I seriously doubt. I don’t think we can become autarkic any more than China can become autarkic and trying to prove that we can get along without exchange of goods, some of which one or the other has a monopoly grasp on is folly.
reply
At a lower standard of living, yes.
reply
Of course, but isn’t that a given? They don’t care if the standard of living is throttled for the lower people because they don’t feel the pain at all.
reply
True, no disagreement there. An autarkic US wouldn't be as bad as an autarkic NK. But I still don't think there's any evidence that autarky would be preferrable, even for a large diverse economy.
I guess I just don't know what Peter Navarro's theory is. Why would he be against a factory owned by BMW but operated here? It's not like the US doesn't have its own car companies too.
reply
I don’t think that the U.S. could become autarkic while under the current regime of controls and economic laws. There are too many barriers to any kind of capital investment in, say for instance, mining for any kind of minerals. Mining is considered environmental destruction rather than economic activity and with that kind of problem, I don’t know if you could reasonably, in terms of cost, overcome the lawfare.
reply
It’s pretty much unpreferable by definition, unless the autarky exists with no state intervention, as with the entire Earth.
reply
The big problem is the difference in the marginal cost of inputs. Comparative advantage theory says that there is some point to buying even high cost goods depending on the advantage you gain by pursuing your own advantageous activity over doing everything autarkically.
reply
Maybe we can say that aliens don't exist because if they did we'd be trading with them.
reply
Aren’t we trading with them already? The aliens, I mean. I think we are going to find out how our world works in the near future.
The strongest proof yet!
let's ask Americans who work for BMW in South Carolina
reply
I, also, think that Musk may be right on Navarro. Navarro is an academic not a builder or shaker of the real world, only a shaker and quaker of the ivory tower. To say that foreign investment in an economy is detrimental defies all previous experience and real world examples. To be generous, perhaps Navarro meant something else and misspoke in the spur of the moment.
reply
how can foreign investment or capital flowing into a country be bad for that country?
reply
That is a really good question! It worked well for Japan, Germany and China and, unexpectedly, for us during the 19th century.
reply
capital outflow is bad, money leaving your country etc
reply
I think that it depends upon the situation. Sometimes capital outflow releases pressure on less efficient industries. Anything that satisfies consumer wants and needs most efficiently is the proper thing to do.
reply