China Tariff Battle Impacts Ottawa Kansas

by Levi A. Russell
This originally appeared as a column at the Ottawa Herald

When we read about the many aspects of the current trade war with China, it’s difficult to see how big international policy decisions affect us here in Ottawa. This week I’d like to discuss recent events in the trade war with China and how they might affect us. To do that, let’s take a big picture look at the trade war. Though there are many weapons in a trade war, tariffs are the primary weapon of choice for the Trump administration in its war with China. A tariff is a tax on an import, but as we will see, it’s a complicated tax.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed a 25% tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods imported to the U.S. The 25% tariff is paid explicitly by importers of Chinese goods, but other parties are implicitly affected by the tax. In economics, we say that the incidence of the tax falls on the aforementioned importers, Chinese exporters, and U.S. consumers. The importer passes on some or all of the tariff in the form of higher prices for U.S. consumers. This higher price pushes down the quantity that consumers want to buy, resulting in lower revenue for Chinese exporters.

The tariffs will be applied to over 5,000 different products; some are consumer goods (i.e. goods we buy and consume directly) and others are intermediate goods, which are used by U.S. manufacturers to make other products. Some examples of goods that will be taxed under this tariff are grain, candies, pasta, beverages, minerals, ores, slag, ash, mineral oils, inorganic chemicals used in manufacturing, fertilizers, soaps, plastics, rubber, wood, fabric, stone, ceramics, flax, cotton, wool, aluminum, furniture, clocks, ships and boats, electronics, and many other goods. We can expect that the prices of many of the consumer goods listed here will increase here in the U.S. and the prices of other goods made from the intermediate goods will also rise to some extent (though not likely a full 25%).

A few days after the U.S. Trade Representative announced the 25% tariff, China retaliated with a promise to increase tariffs on $60 billion worth of goods exported to China. These tariffs will directly impact importers in China, but will also affect industries in the U.S. that export to China, as well as Chinese consumers. The broad categories of goods that will fall under these higher tariffs are food products, building materials, furniture, bedding, footwear, clocks, light fixtures, musical instruments, parts for locomotives, boats and yachts, electronics, and chemicals.

Here in Ottawa, the U.S. tariffs will likely have a bigger impact than the Chinese tariffs. Like the rest of the country, we will likely see a rise in the prices of many consumer goods. Some of the manufacturing and construction businesses in Ottawa will likely see an increase in their costs, especially if they buy raw materials or intermediate products directly from China. They will either have to pay higher prices for these inputs or find other sources either in the U.S. or another country.

Even though I am an economist, I will not try to tell you all of this is bad. The expected reductions in employment and GDP in the U.S. are mild, though they will likely be felt to a greater degree in specific areas of the country. These economic costs might be worth it if they result in policy changes that are favorable to U.S. interests. For all its improvements in the past few decades since it slaughtered tens of millions of its own people, China is still a Communist country. They still send Christians and Muslims to “re-education camps,” micromanage their citizens’ lives with an authoritarian social credit system, and support North Korea, which actively tortures its own people. China has repeatedly stolen our intellectual property and is increasing its spying efforts in the U.S.

The use of the term “trade war” is apt. The tariff battles may impact the economy in the short run, but winning the war is the goal. It’s up to us and our elected officials to determine whether the economic costs are worth the strategic and security-related benefits.

Dr. Levi A. Russell is the Gwartney Institute Professor of Economic Education and Research at Ottawa University

2018 Farm Bill and Franklin County

by Levi A. Russell
 

This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Herald

On December 11, Congress released the 807-page Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 from its conference committee, which passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses. The Act is the latest of a long line of legislation going back to the Great Depression commonly called the Farm Bill. This Farm Bill will define the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s activities from now until 2023 when it will expire and a new law will replace it. It replaces a law passed in 2014 that made major changes to agricultural policy. How does the 2018 Farm Bill affect Franklin county?


To answer this, we first need to ask: What does agriculture in Franklin county look like? For those of you who drive around our gravel roads regularly, it won’t surprise you that roughly one third of the land area of Franklin county is planted to corn and soybeans. These are the two major crops in this county and in much of eastern Kansas. Last year, over $54 million of corn and soybeans were planted in the county. While corn and soybeans are the primary crops in the county, farmers here also plant wheat and sorghum. Animal agriculture is also important in Franklin county. There are 44,500 cattle in the county, which means there are 1.7 cows, bulls, heifers, and steers for every person!


The 2018 Farm Bill and others like it in the past provide funding for three general program areas: agriculture, conservation, and nutrition assistance. Agricultural funding is primarily used to provide subsidies for crop insurance and income assistance to farmers when prices or yields are low, commonly referred to as the commodity title. Crop insurance for the primary crops in Franklin County hasn’t changed much in over a decade, but the 2014 Farm Bill made significant changes to the commodity title. These changes included a major shift in the program away from direct payments to farmers which occurred regardless of production conditions or prices to a risk-based commodity assistance program. Farmers were given the choice between two programs, one that focused on prices and the other that focused on total revenue for the crop. When prices or revenue fell below a certain level, payments were triggered.


The 2018 Farm Bill continues these commodity assistance programs with some notable exceptions. With the 2014 Farm Bill, farmers had to choose between the price program and the revenue program once and for all when they signed up in 2014. The new Bill allows farmers to choose again in 2019 for 2019 and 2020 and then choose annually between the two from 2021 to 2023. This change gives farmers more choice in the program and will allow them to choose the program that they believe will best mitigate the risks they will face that year. Farmers will also be able to update their yields on which the program payments are calculated. Both of these changes will likely result in more flexible support for agriculture in Franklin County over the next 5 years.


Another program within the commodity title is the commodity loan program. This is a very old component of the Farm Bill designed to provide additional assistance when prices are very, very low. The 2018 Farm Bill includes the first update to this program in 16 years, increasing loan rates (the base level of price support) by 12.8% for corn and 24% for soybeans.


There are two major changes to environmentally-focused programs in the 2018 Farm Bill. First, crop insurance has been changed to accommodate the use of cover crops. Cover crops are beneficial to soil health and help reduce erosion after the primary crops are harvested. Legislators hope that changing crop insurance to accommodate the use of cover crops will increase farmers’ adoption of this environmentally-beneficial practice.


The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is another long-standing component of the Farm Bill. This program allows farmers to take land out of crop production and receive “rental” payments from the government. These rental payments designed to incentivize the maintenance of habitat for wildlife. CRP contracts typically last 10 years.  The 2014 Farm Bill allowed up to 24 million acres to be put into CRP, but the 2018 Bill increases this to 27 million by 2023. I couldn’t find detailed data for Franklin County, but, currently, there are somewhere between 10,000 and 25,000 acres in CRP in the county.


Nutrition assistance is always a contentious subject in Farm Bill debates among legislators. This component of the Bill typically represents about 75% of the total funding in the Bill and goes to support the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly called food stamps. Though several controversial changes were proposed — for example, expanding and enhancing work requirements for participation in the program — none of them made it into the final bill. Funding for SNAP is expected to increase $98 million total over the 5 year life of this Bill.


Overall, the 2018 Farm Bill did not make dramatic changes to agricultural policy for 2019-2023. However, the changes that were made will likely improve the safety net for farmers, incentivize better environmental stewardship, and increase funding for one of the more efficient government food assistance programs.

Dr. Levi A. Russell is the Gwartney Institute Professor of Economic Education and Research at Ottawa University