Donald Trump Will Never Actually Go After Jeff Bezos And Amazon [feedly]

Donald Trump Will Never Actually Go After Jeff Bezos And Amazon
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-trump-amazon-jeff-bezos_us_5ba7ebe5e4b0375f8f9e28e8

On several occasions in the last two years, Donald Trump has made blunt threats against The Washington Post and its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos.

Since buying the Post from the Graham family in 2013, Bezos has reinvested handsomely in the newsroom, while keeping his hands off editorial matters. As the Post has done its job, becoming a thorn in Trump's side, the president has issued dark warnings against the source of Bezos's spare billions, Amazon. But curiously, Trump's administration has not acted on these threats. And therein hangs a tale.

Bezos made his massive fortune the old fashioned way, as a monopolist. Amazon has nasty, predatory habits of bullying sellers that don't meet its terms, vacuuming up potential competitors, and of course keeping massive information on customers that give it an unfair leg up on its rivals.

In the last few years, Amazon has decided that it wants to be the retailer of choice for virtually everything. When an innovator comes up with a clever idea, Amazon copies it, underprices it and then uses its immense market power to crowd it out.

MORE BY ROBERT KUTTNER

Sweden Shows No Country Is Immune To Far-Right, Anti-Immigrant Backlash

How Democrats Can Make Race A Winning Issue

Republicans Can Honor John McCain By Putting America Before Trump

See all from this author

There has never been a behemoth company more ripe for antitrust action than Amazon.

Take Wayfair.com, a leading home furnishings internet company. The Boston Business Journal recently noted that Wayfair's stock dropped seven percent after Amazon introduced a competing product and business model.

Or consider Whole Foods. It was bad enough when Whole Foods either acquired or drove out the leading independent organic small chains. Now, Amazon owns Whole Foods. Like a lot of shoppers, I have mixed feeling about the grocery chain. It's overpriced and pretentious, but it has a terrific selection of foods that I like, such as nice cheeses.

Or it did. Lately, the Amazon algorithms seem to have decided that the more exotic merchandise is not quite as profitable as more ordinary stuff, and have pared down the offerings.

Or take Stitchfix.com. You can send them information on your taste and budget and size in clothing, and periodically a box of stuff will arrive for you to choose from. Isn't that clever?

Amazon evidently thought so. That's why they launched Prime Wardrobe. And of course, Amazon has almost infinite data on the shopping habits of most Americans, so it can target its marketing more effectively and cheaply than rivals.

This is all predatory, anti-competitive behavior. It's neither economically efficient nor in the public interest for Amazon to own everything. The proof is the company's massive profit, known in economist-speak as monopoly rents.

The failure of Tump's antitrust authorities, at either the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, to go after Amazon's predatory behavior ― which is hidden in plain view ― is emblematic of the core contradiction in the pseudo-populist Trump administration and its corporate and "mainstream" Republican allies.

THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES

There has never been a behemoth company more ripe for antitrust action than Amazon. But ever since Chicago economic theorist Robert Bork redefined antitrust out of existence in the 1970s and 1980s by claiming that predatory behavior can't exist (because markets in their genius would fix it), the antitrust police under Democratic and Republican administrations alike have gone to sleep.

Bork, as head of President Ronald Reagan's antitrust division of the Justice Department, did more than destroy antitrust investigation and litigation. His crackpot theories brainwashed an entire cohort of law and economics professors, whose views were most congenial to corporate America.

As a new generation of legal scholars has made clear, however, traditional antitrust laws and concepts could readily be applied to the anti-competitive behavior of Amazon (and other platform monopolies such as Google and Facebook). Take a look at this terrific piece by Lina Khan.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Amazon is doing great damage to tax paying retailers. Towns, cities and states throughout the U.S. are being hurt - many jobs being lost!

6:12 AM - Aug 16, 2017

• 66.1K
• 44.7K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

So why doesn't Trump act? Instructing his appointees at the FTC and the Justice Department to launch a major investigation of Amazon would be good and entirely legitimate public policy, and it would be a defensible attack against the source of Bezos's billions.

The answer is that, when push comes to shove, Trump and his ideological allies in the Republican Party and corporate America default more to predatory robber-baron than to populist. Bezos is their kind of guy. And if you took on Bezos, you might also have to take on the predatory behavior of the drug companies, the airlines, and on and on.

Trump is also too unfocused, impulsive and disorganized to pay attention for more than the duration of a tweet, or to do anything a bit complicated. And if Steve Bannon happens to be reading this column, there is one other problem. It's just not possible to break Bezos's rice bowl.

With an estimated net worth of $158 billion, Bezos is literally the world's wealthiest person. The man is now so utterly rich that even if the antitrust authorities kept Amazon from destroying competitors and taking over the world, a few billion of his existing fortune would be sufficient to endow the Washington Post in perpetuity. Oh well.

So back to golf and tweeting. This is why a real antitrust reform agenda, despite the possible allure of sheer vengeance for Trump, awaits the next progressive Democratic administration.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a professor at Brandeis University's Heller School. His new book is Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism? Follow him on Twitter at @rkuttnerwrites.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Some greatest hits of the 10-year lookback pieces on the crisis. [feedly]

Some greatest hits of the 10-year lookback pieces on the crisis.
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/some-greatest-hits-of-the-10-year-lookback-pieces-on-the-crisis/

I've read probably 100 of those "lessons learned (or not)" pieces about the crisis on the 10-year anniversary of Lehman's collapse.

Here are some that stood out to me, though one inevitably leaves out some worthy of your attention, so feel free to add others. (My own piece is out today on WaPo.)

–I found this Steve Pearlstein piece interesting on a couple of levels. It's a solid take of the shampoo economy dynamics (bubble, bust, repeat) that I've long bemoaned, citing the insights of Minsky's analysis (by putting financial cycles and regulatory amnesia at the heart of his model, Minsky explains a reality that conventional economics, which assigns finance a benign, intermediary role, assumes away).

But on a deeper level, as someone who's read Pearlstein's work over the years–he's long been a celebrated business writer for the WaPo–his identification of the flaws in capitalism take on greater weight as they come from a writer who did not start out looking for such flaws.

–As I note in my WaPo piece, for all the ink spilled on these 10-year anniversary pieces, there's one critical question that hardly gets asked at all: how did we miss it? Dean Baker, one of the few who didn't miss the housing bubble, points out that this shouldn't have been so hard to see.

"The [housing] bubble and the risks it posed should have been evident to any careful observer. We saw an unprecedented run-up in house prices with no plausible explanation in the fundamentals of the housing market…The fact that prices were being driven in part by questionable loans was not a secret. The fact that lenders were issuing loans to people who had not previously been eligible was widely touted by the financial industry. The fact that many of these loans involved little or no down payment was also widely known."

–Dean's piece gets into the response to the crisis from the perspective of the negative impact on consumer spending from the loss of trillions in housing wealth, along with tanking home building/residential investment. Others, as in a recent piece by Ben Bernanke, argue that panicked credit markets were a more important driver of the loss of output and jobs in the downturn. Krugman agrees with Dean, emphasizing that output and jobs remained weak well after credit conditions thawed.

Surely both–the credit freeze and the negative demand shock–mattered. Banks and non-bank lenders were engaged in a carry trade of borrowing low in short-term money markets and lending long in asset markets, especially housing. The bank run that ensued when the loans soured and the short-term credit evaporated practically overnight was, of course, as Bernanke argues, an important driver of the output losses that followed. But absent bolder Keynesian interventions, reflating credit alone would have, and in fact, did, amount to pushing on a string (though see Furman below for a somewhat upbeat take of the U.S. fiscal case).

–This engenders bailout questions and arguments that have been going on since TARP was born. John Cassidy takes us through the issues in a review of Adam Tooze's new book Crashed, which looks like a very deep dive into the global finance aspects of the crash.

–Neil Irwin provides a painful reminder of how horribly unpopular the bailouts were. He argues that they accomplished their goals of reflating credit markets, but at tremendous political cost, a cost I'm reminded of with every presidential tweet.

–Based on this moral hazard problem, Robert Samuelson asks: "How do you protect the system without seeming to reward the guilty?" This seems very straightforward to me: regulate the heck out of the financial markets. The extent of regulation should be proportional to the risk posed to the rest of the economy. And the time to worry about moral hazard is not in the crunch. It's precisely now, when markets are ebullient and policy makers are reading urging regulators to go night-night at the switch.

–Jason Furman reminds us that the fiscal policy response to the downturn was a lot more robust than the Recovery Act. In fact, if you sum up all the countercyclical fiscal programs over the period of the Great Recession, the price tag is twice that of the Recovery Act ($1.5 trillion according to his Table 1). While Furman gives a relatively favorable review of the fiscal actions taken back then (with solid evidence), he doesn't look at the Obama administration's housing relief policies, which were arguably woeful under-performers.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Bernstein: A couple of economists respectfully disagree on the politics of policy in the age of Trump and the new socialists [feedly]

A couple of economists respectfully disagree on the politics of policy in the age of Trump and the new socialists
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/a-couple-of-economists-respectfully-disagree-on-politics-policy-in-the-age-of-trump-and-the-new-socialists/

Belle Sawhill is an economist I greatly admire, so I carefully read her Twitter-thread critique of a piece I recently posted in the WaPo.



My piece makes the case that technocratic policy wonks, like Belle and me, should not be overly critical of ambitious, even unrealistic, policy proposals by the new socialists. True, they often eschew the path dependency by which many of us are constrained. But they signal to key constituencies that, relative to establishment or centrist Democrats, they're going to bring a new, aggressive fight to the powerful, well-endowed forces that have long been aligned against the progressive agenda.

I argue that:

"What Trump should have taught us by now is that if people believe you've got their backs, you can do things never imagined by the status quo. In this regard, the new socialists are saying to the majority that has long been left behind, "We've really got your back." Moreover, their analysis of market power is far more convincing than Trump's promotion of fear and divisiveness.

Yes, the socialists are eschewing path dependency, and not all their plans pass technocratic muster. But, for now, that's beside the point.

What is that point? To enlist poor, middle-class and diverse America in the struggle to take back their country and their democracy from the oligarchs who are actively undermining it."

Belle argues that I'm advocating "politics first, policy later," and that this strategy invokes significant risks. These include a) alienating a public that is more moderate than activists, b) exposing D's "to barrage of criticisms from right, painting them as socialists who will raise taxes, take away freedoms, and scare away swing voters, including Rs unhappy with Trump," and c) deepening distrust of government by promising big and delivering little, if anything.

Instead, she recommends: "A simple values-based agenda that provides good jobs, honors personal responsibility, diversity, community-based efforts, and demands integrity from public servants." That sounds good, but we'll all have to read her new book (looking forward to it!) to understand what she's suggesting. Surely a "values-based agenda" means different things to different people.

In fact, such differences make me skeptical of Belle's claim that the public is more moderate than activists. That may be true in Conor Lamb's district, but it's demonstrably not so in Ocasio-Cortez's or Jahana Hayes' or Ayanna Pressley's or Andrew Gillum's or Stacey Abrams'.

I suspect Belle is thinking about general elections, not primaries, where activists tend to be more prominent. Still, it's hard for me not to see what the Times calls a "surge of progressive energy on the left among nonwhite voters and white millennials" as a critical movement pushing our politics in a less moderate direction. Individual elements of the socialist agenda poll well among the general public, sometimes even with Trump voters. President Obama just endorsed Medicare for All and debt-free college, planks of the new socialist agenda. In fact, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that a slight majority of Republican voters support Medicare For All. These poll results suggest to me that young people are increasingly uninspired by status-quo, establishment, middle-way arguments.

Next, there's no question that right-wing opponents will make all the accusations Belle notes under "b" above. But they already make all these accusations – President Obama was routinely called a socialist for pushing an agenda with which I suspect Belle is very comfortable.

So what? I'm not going to let their cat calls dictate my policy agenda. I'm sure that universal coverage, higher minimum wages, employment supports, access to quality education from pre-school on up, promote freedom. And it's my—I'd argue "our"—job as policy wonks to make the case.

If that means more tax revenue, which it does, then we must be honest about that too. The fact that one party will only cut taxes and the other will only raise them on a narrow sliver of the richest voters is simply unsustainable and inconsistent with meeting the challenges of climate change, aging demographics, infrastructure, health care, poverty, affordable, quality pre-school through college, and more.

Finally, I can envision an endgame that raises, not lowers, trust in government. If the Ds were to take back the Congress and the White House, the lions would have to sit down with the Lambs. That is, Democratic moderates would have to work with the progressive insurgents to hammer out a compromise policy agenda in the areas above. I doubt they'd end up with single payer and free college, but I'm optimistic that they'd get part of the way there.

That might well disappoint some activists, but it would have a potentially much larger, positive effect in tapping the growing recognition that we need a functional, responsive, representative government that can help to solve real problems. -- via my feedly newsfeed

IMF Ten Years After Lehman—Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead [feedly]

Ten Years After Lehman—Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead

https://blogs.imf.org/2018/09/05/ten-years-after-lehman-lessons-learned-and-challenges-ahead/

By Christine Lagarde

September 5, 2018

عربي, Baˈhasa indoneˈsia, Español, 中文, Français, 日本語, Português, Русский

A trader on the New York Stock Exchange the day US investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy: the global crisis that followed is a defining moment of our time (Photo: Nancy-Kaszerman/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

The global financial crisis remains one of the defining events of our time. It will forever mark the generation that lived through it. The fallout from the crisis—the heavy economic costs borne by ordinary people combined with the anger at seeing banks bailed out and bankers enjoying impunity, at a time when real wages continued to stagnate—is among the key factors in explaining the backlash against globalization, particularly in advanced economies, and the erosion of trust in government and other institutions.

In this sense, the crisis cast a long shadow, which shows no sign of going away any time soon. Yet the tenth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers—what I once referred to as a "holy cow" moment—gives us an opportunity to evaluate the response to the crisis over the past decade.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers provoked a broader run on the financial system, leading to systemic crisis. All told, twenty-four countries fell victim to banking crises, and economic activity has still not returned to trend in most of them. One study suggests that the average American will lose $70,000 in lifetime income because of the crisis. Governments continue to feel the pinch too. Public debt in advanced economies rose by more than 30 percentage points of GDP—partly due to economic weakness, partly due to efforts to stimulate the economy, and partly due to bailing out failing banks.

We are now facing new, post-crisis, fault lines.

Looking back today, the pressure points seem obvious. But they were less obvious at the time. Most economists failed to predict what was coming. It is a sobering lesson in groupthink.

What were these pressure points? At the core was financial innovation that vastly outpaced regulation and supervision. Financial institutions—particularly in the United States and Europe—went on a frenzy of reckless risk-taking. This included relying less on traditional deposits and more on short-term funding, dramatically lowering lending standards, pushing loans off balance sheets through murky securitizations, and more generally, shifting activity to the hidden corners of the financial sector that were subject to less regulatory oversight. For example, the market share of subprime mortgages in the United States reached 40 percent of overall mortgage-backed securities by 2006—up from almost nothing in the early 1990s.

In turn, the increased globalization of banking and financial services caused the crisis to cascade rapidly and dangerously. European banks were major buyers of American mortgage-backed securities. At the same time, the introduction of the euro led to large capital flows to the periphery as borrowing costs fell. These flows were financed by banks in the core—another channel of financial contagion. Globalization also contributed to the problem through regulatory arbitrage—financial institutions were able to demand lighter oversight based on their ability to decamp to more favorable jurisdictions.

If the policy response to these pre-crisis risks was inadequate, I would say that the immediate policy response to the crisis was impressive. The governments of the major economies represented by the G20 coordinated policies on a global scale. Countries with banking problems limited the drag of flailing financial sectors on the real economy—through measures such as capital support, debt guarantees, and asset purchases. Central banks slashed policy rates and later sailed deep into unknown seas with unconventional monetary policy. Governments propped up demand with large fiscal stimuluses.

The IMF played its part too. We mobilized member countries to expand our financial resources dramatically—and as a result, were able to commit nearly $500 billion to countries hit by crisis. We also pumped an unprecedented $250 billion of global liquidity into the system. We modernized our lending frameworks, to allow a faster and more flexible response to country needs—including by moving to zero interest rates on loans to low-income countries. And we engaged in a serious rethink of macroeconomics, to get a better handle on what we all had missed, including the complex linkages between the financial sector and the real economy.

Together, these policies—in the context of collective international action—largely worked in the sense that a worst-case scenario was averted. This was not a sure thing—in the immediate aftermath of Lehman, we were really staring into the abyss. Holy cow, indeed…

Policy also addressed the mistakes that led to the crisis. Banks have much healthier capital and liquidity positions. Off-balance sheet entities have been curtailed and brought under the regulatory umbrella. Big banks face tighter regulation, and leverage is lower. Subprime mortgage origination is largely gone. A big chunk of over-the-counter derivatives has been shifted to central clearing.

This is all good, but still not good enough. Too many banks, especially in Europe, remain weak. Bank capital should probably go up further. "Too-big-to-fail" remains a problem as banks grow in size and complexity. There has still not been enough progress on how to resolve failing banks, especially across borders. A lot of the murkier activities are moving toward the shadow banking sector. On top of this, continued financial innovation—including from high frequency trading and fintech—adds to financial stability challenges. In addition, and perhaps most worryingly of all, policymakers are facing substantial pressure from industry to roll back post-crisis regulations.

There is one other important area that has not changed much—the area of culture, values, and ethics. As I have noted before , the financial sector still puts profit now over long-range prudence, short-termism over sustainability. Just think of the many financial scandals since Lehman. Ethics is not only important for its own sake, but because ethical lapses have clear economic consequences. Good regulation and supervision can do a lot, but they cannot do everything. They must be complemented by reform within financial institutions.

In this context, a key ingredient of reform would be more female leadership in finance. I say this for two reasons. First, greater diversity always sharpens thinking, reducing the potential for groupthink. Second, this diversity also leads to more prudence, with less of the reckless decision-making that provoked the crisis. Our own research bears this out—a higher share of women on the boards of banks and financial supervision agencies is associated with greater stability. As I have said many times, if it had been Lehman Sisters rather than Lehman Brothers, the world might well look a lot different today.

So where do we stand on the tenth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman? The bottom line is this: We have come a long way, but not far enough. The system is safer, but not safe enough. Growth has rebounded but is not shared enough.

Complicating matters, the political economy landscape has shifted, with a fading commitment to international cooperation—ironically, the very kind of cooperation that prevented the crisis from becoming another Great Depression. Think of the role played by the G20, the FSB, the IMF, and others who worked so well together over the past decade. Indeed, the importance of international cooperation in meeting 21^st century challenges is one of the enduring lessons of the crisis.

We are now facing new, post-crisis, fault lines—from the potential rollback of financial regulation, to the fallout from excessive inequality, to protectionism and inward-looking policies, to rising global imbalances. How we respond to these challenges will determine whether we have fully internalized the lessons from Lehman. In this sense, the true legacy of the crisis cannot be adequately assessed after ten years—because it is still being written.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Hello

Hello my dear,

Could you help me to receive an inheritance fund at the rate of $4,900,000.00USD (Four Million Nine hundred thousand US Dollars)?

Into your bank account in your country or elsewhere.

A fund has been overdue for International transfer in one of the account held in our Banque Commerciale du Burkina BCB. In our research we found out that the original owner of this fund died in a fatal gassy car-accident that killed both him and his only son whom was supposed to be a beneficiary next of kin to his father's asset. This accident happened on his way back to one of his factory in suburb Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

The owner of this fund is a citizen of South Korea, he own about 2 companies here in Burkina Faso 1 textile meal Plant, and another cement manufacturing factory, all of this generated him a lot of money here in Africa.

In the light of the above, I am reaching you with this notification to revert back to me so we can discuss on the successful manners to remits this fund into your bank account in your country.

This fund is overdue for transfer or withdrawal to be made, but nobody has been coming for this fund hence the owner of fund is dead and the supposed beneficiary Next of Kin which is his only son dead too. No information pertaining the deposit of this fund has passed to anybody or organization. And my position in the bank cannot allow me to lay claim on this fund because the owner is a foreigner and we the citizen of Burkina Faso are not permitted to interfere in any foreign affairs.

If you are interested to receive this fund under my guidelines I am able to give you all information's and the password to pass through our bank examination for approval to transfer fund to your bank.

Just reply me and give me your full names and telephone
number's……………………………………………

We shall talk about the percentage sharing of fund between both of us, in return e-mail, more details and information shall be released to you immediately you indicate your interest.

Reply me at: dr.stanleyanorue@hotmail.com, you call me on +226 63 71 51 67.

Waiting very urgent to discuss with you.


Dr. Stanley Anorue
Retail & Wealth Management
Banque Commerciale du Burkina BCB

The financial crisis and the foundations for macroeconomics [feedly]

The financial crisis and the foundations for macroeconomics
http://larrysummers.com/2018/09/13/the-financial-crisis-and-the-foundations-for-macroeconomics/

A, if not the, preoccupation of macroeconomists for the last generation has been providing macroeconomics with a microeconomic foundation. At one level this totally makes sense. How can one be against establishing foundations? And it makes sense to think that macroeconomic theories of fluctuations in investment, for example, should be rooted in theories of how individual businesses makes investment decisions.

Yet it has to be acknowledged that the principle of building macroeconomics on microeconomic foundations, as applied by economists, contributed next to nothing to predicting, explaining or resolving the Great Recession. The insights into the financial meltdown that policymakers found most valuable came from scholars, such as Hyman Minsky and Charles Kindleberger, who thought in terms of broad aggregates and made no effort to establish micro foundations. The market participants, such as Ray Dalio, who were most prescient with respect to the crisis ignored microeconomics as they theorized in terms of debt and credit aggregates.

What went wrong, and what is to be learned? In my view, the core supposition of much of macroeconomics, which is that it is best to operate with as fundamental a foundation as possible, is not supported by the history of science. Psychologists understand much of human behavior without thinking about neurons. Geologists product earthquakes without going back to the first principles of physics. Structural engineers use rules of thumb gained from experience for understanding the properties of materials used in construction.

So, too, macroeconomics need not be, and probably should not be, built on foundations that center on optimizing decisions by households and firms. For such an approach to be tractable too much needs to be abstracted from. In addition, recent research in behavioral economics suggests that optimization of the kind envisioned by economists is a poor model for understanding actual spending decisions.

But some kind of foundation is still required for macroeconomics. That is why I'm very excited by my friend Andrei Shleifer's new book with Nicola Gennaioli, "A Crisis of Beliefs: Investor Psychology and Financial Fragility." The book puts expectations at the center of thinking about economic fluctuations and financial crises — but these expectations are not rational. In fact, as all the evidence suggests, they are subject to systematic errors of extrapolation. The book suggests that these errors in expectations are best understood as arising out of cognitive biases to which humans are prone.

It starts with the work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, showing how their ideas can be used to build tractable models of expectations in the economy. The approach helps to reevaluate the housing bubble before the financial crisis but also explains why investors and policymakers were so slow to catch on to the vulnerabilities of markets as the bubble began to deflate. It provides a persuasive account of the 2008 crisis and suggests the kind of perspectives that could have prevented or at least mitigated its consequences. And it points the way toward reducing future crisis risks.

To be sure there is much more work to do. The arguments that Gennaioli and Shleifer make need to be debated in the profession. And, yes, it is easier to explain the past than to predict the future. But theories of economic fluctuation and crisis based on the tendency of human beings to become too greedy and then too fearful seem much more fruitful than theories based on accurate optimization.

Something is wrong with the economics profession if events like those of 2008 do not change its thinking. Those wanting to be in the vanguard of the new thinking should be reading "A Crisis of Beliefs."

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Did Trump just kill the US auto industry? [feedly]

Did Trump just kill the US auto industry?
http://www.atimes.com/article/did-trump-just-kill-the-us-auto-industry/

• 0
• 0

Economic historians will cite July 9, 2018 as the date on which the US lost the trade war with China – before the war began.

That was when Germany's top manufacturing companies – Volkswagen, BMW, Daimler, BASF and Siemens – announced tens of billions of dollars of new investments in China as Chinese Premier Li Keqiang posed for a photo op with German Chancellor Merkel in Berlin.

BMW will expand its joint venture with Brilliance Auto to produce 519,000 vehicles a year. It also set up a joint venture to produce an electric version of the Mini together with Great Wall Auto. And it agreed to buy US$4.7 billion worth of batteries from Chinese producer CATL, which just announced a new plant in southern Germany. Volkswagen earlier this year announced that it would invest US$18 billion in China by 2022 and construct six plants to build electric vehicles. BMW will move some of its SUV production out of its South Carolina plant in response to auto tariffs.

Since then the prices of US automakers have tanked, and German auto stocks have rallied. The future of the auto industry lies in electric vehicles, for which China will be the world's largest market by far. China also has the world's most advanced battery technology as well as the most robust supply chain for battery production.

China's response to American tariffs has been to offer German and Japanese industrial companies a privileged position in joint ventures with Chinese manufacturers. China also is reportedly planning to reduce import tariffs for America's competitors. Toyota and Honda also announced plans to expand Chinese production in July.

The US administration often cites the relative performance of equity prices as a gauge of its success in the present trade confrontation with China. At the sector level, though, equity prices tell a different story.

President Trump apparently believes that tariffs will bring auto production back to the United States, as he suggested on Twitter in early September:

Ford's North American production manager Mike Levine tweeted in reply, "It would not be profitable to build the Focus Active in the U.S. given an expected annual sales volume of fewer than 50,000 units and its competitive segment."

The fate of the Ford Focus, though, is the least of the problems of the American auto industry. China has prepared a supply chain for electric vehicles in depth, and it is extremely difficult for automakers who are not entrenched in the Chinese market to compete.

China also holds the keys to the future of self-driving cars. Rather than attempt to design autonomous vehicles to negotiate the poor infrastructure of American cities, China is designing cities around the concept of autonomous vehicles, with roads fenced off from pedestrians and 5th-generation mobile broadband.

China is not only the largest auto market in the world, and likely to grow as a percentage of the world auto market, but it is the center of auto industry innovation.

Wall Street analysts are busy calculating the prospective advantages to European and Japanese exporters. As I wrote in August (Europe, Japan, China and Russia line up against the US), America's trade war on China portends a global shift in trading relationships away from the US.

Alicia Garcia Herrero, an economist at the French bank Natixis, summarized the potential shift on September 14:

"For the first batch of import tariffs ($50 billion from each side), the key beneficiaries in Europe from substituting Chinese exports into the US would be general purpose machinery. As for China's market, European car manufacturers, followed by aircraft and aerospace, would be the key winners from potentially replacing the US exporters…For the second batch of import tariffs (on $200 billion from US side and $60 billion from China's side), Europe's potential gains in the US are extended to many more sectors, including office, accounting & computing machinery as well as furniture […] European gains in China will also be more widespread, covering sectors such as medical & precision products, basic chemicals and general purpose machinery."

 -- via my feedly newsfeed