Connect with us

Government

A Cold War with China, Global Warming, and Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

I’ve had some exchanges with people in recent weeks where I raised the prospect that a new Cold War with China would seriously undermine our efforts…

Published

on

I’ve had some exchanges with people in recent weeks where I raised the prospect that a new Cold War with China would seriously undermine our efforts to deal with climate change. Incredibly, most people did not see the connection. Maybe I have been an economist for too long, but to me the connection is pretty damn direct, and should be hitting us all in the face.

The basic story is that cold wars cost money, lots of it. If we spend large sums of money building up our military to meet the challenge of our Cold War adversary, we won’t have the money needed to address climate change. It’s sort of like if you spend your whole paycheck on gambling and alcohol, you won’t have money to pay the rent and for your kids’ college education.

To get an idea of what is at stake, we are currently projected to spend an average of 3.0 percent of GDP on the military budget over the next decade. During Reagan’s Cold War buildup in the 1980s, military spending peaked at more than 6.0 percent of GDP. Spending went to over 9.0 percent of GDP when we had actually hot wars in Vietnam and Korea.

But, let’s just take the 6.0 percent figure. That’s 3.0 percentage points more than what we are on a path to spend now. If we take that over the course of a decade, as is now fashionable in budget debates, that would come to an additional $9.0 trillion in spending. That’s far more than twice President Biden’s “massive” Build Back Better agenda.

Where would we get this $9 trillion? Does anyone think we could get the political support to raise taxes by even a small portion of this amount? If we saw anything like this level of military spending, it would almost certainly mean massive cuts to existing levels of spending on education, health care, and every other category of non-military spending, including climate.

But wait, it gets worse. At its peak, the Soviet economy was roughly 60 percent of the size of the U.S. economy. This means that if we spent roughly equal amounts on our military, it was a much greater burden on the Soviet economy than the U.S. economy.

The opposite is the case with China. Its economy is already more than 20 percent larger than the U.S. economy, according to data from the International Monetary Fund. China’s economy is also growing more rapidly. Given its current growth path, China’s economy will be close to 50 percent larger by the end of the decade.

 

Source: International Monetary Fund.

 

The reason people typically refer to China’s economy as the world’s second largest economy, after the United States, rather than the largest, is that they use exchange rate conversions of GDP. This method takes a country’s GDP in its own currency and then converts it to dollars at the current exchange rate.

Since exchange rates are somewhat arbitrary and often fluctuate by large amounts, most economists prefer an alternative measure of GDP, called “purchasing power parity.” This measure uses the same prices to measure all goods and services produced in different countries around the world. This means, for example, a Toyota Nissan is counted as being $20,000 in the GDP (or whatever its actual price) n any country that produces a Toyota Nissan, regardless of the price it sells for in that country. A loaf of bread will count as $3 in every country producing bread, again regardless of the actual price of bread in that country. This methodology is applied to all the goods and services produced in a country.

Needless to say, this is difficult to do accurately, but in principle this method gives us apples to apples comparisons of GDP. It should give us a reasonable measure of the relative sizes of economies around the world. It is this measure that shows China’s economy is currently more than 20 percent larger than the U.S. economy. The I.M.F. growth path shows that this gap will grow larger in the rest of the decade.

China currently spends a much smaller share of its GDP on its military than the United States. According to the CIA World Factbook, China is currently spending about 1.5 percent of its GDP on its military. Given its $30 trillion GDP, China’s military spending in 2022 would come to around $450 billion, a bit more than half current U.S. spending.

However, we cannot take China’s lower spending for granted. If China’s leadership considers the country’s security interests threatened, it can obviously increase its military spending. And, if China’s leadership wanted large-scale increases in its military spending, it would face far less political opposition than in the United States.

And, there should be little doubt that China would be able to match the United States in military technology. While there are undoubtedly many areas of military technology, where the United States does have an advantage, this is not true in all areas. For example, China appears to be ahead of the United States in developing hypersonic missiles. China has many highly-skilled engineers, software designers, and experts in other areas of military technology. There is no basis for believing that the United States will somehow be able to maintain an edge in technology over China going forward.

The basic story is that if we get into a situation where China perceives the United States to be threatening its national security interests, there can be little doubt it can and would radically ramp up its military spending. If we then get into an arms race, the burden on our economy could be enormous.

And, it would almost certainly require massive reductions in non-military spending, including spending on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. If we have a new Cold War with China, we can forget about a major commitment of resources to deal with climate change, as well as addressing other long neglected needs.  

 

Cooperation Rather the Confrontation: An Alternative Path

While the defense industry would hugely benefit from a new Cold War with China, most of the rest of us would not. We stand to gain far more from a relationship that seeks out paths of cooperation, where they are available.

Just to be clear, choosing a path of selective cooperation does not imply approval of China’s government. China is not a democracy and it does not respect human rights. Critics of the government face serious risks of persecution and imprisonment. It has engaged in large-scale abuses against minority populations in Tibet and the Uygur population in Xinjiang. It also is reversing commitments it made to respect the autonomy of Hong Kong.

Saying that we should not be engaging in a Cold War with China does not imply approval of these actions. It is simply a recognition of two facts.

First, many of the people who are most vigorous in denouncing abuses in China seem just fine with serious abuses in U.S. allies. Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally, tolerates no open dissent and has an explicit policy of treating women as second-class citizens. It recently had a U.S. resident suffocated and torn to pieces in its Turkish embassy.

The United States also has a long history of supporting the overthrow of democratically elected governments that are perceived as threatening our interests in some way. Two famous examples are the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 and the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.

But we don’t have to go back to the early days of the Cold War to find involvement in the overthrow of democratically elected governments. The U.S. gave support for the coup that ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti in 2004. More recently, the U.S. supported throwing out election results in Bolivia when they didn’t go the way the Trump administration wanted. It also raised no objection to the repression that followed, most of which was directed against its indigenous population.

To put it simply, we do not have a consistent policy of supporting democracy and human rights around the world. Perhaps it would be good if we did, but we don’t. There are plenty of places elsewhere in the world where we support undemocratic regimes that abuse human rights. Clearly the complaints against human rights abuses in China are not the result of a deep and universal commitment to protecting these rights.

The other point is that it is not clear how those who push this agenda hope that their hostile actions will improve the human rights situation in China. If we assume, for the moment, that the human rights critics don’t intend to go to war to overthrow China’s current government, and then install a regime that will respect human rights, we should ask how we think a stance of growing hostility to China will improve the prospects for the people who we hope to help?

If there was good reason to believe that building up military forces against China, and curtailing economic relations, would improve the human rights situation in China and move the regime towards democracy, there would be a good argument for pursuing this route. But that hardly seems likely given the current situation in China. In this context, confrontation is at best a feel- good policy for the people pushing it.

 

Cooperating with China to Save the Planet

I have written before how we have two obvious areas of cooperation with China that could offer enormous benefits to both the U.S. and China and the world as a whole: climate and health. Suppose that, instead of wasting resources in military competition, and bottling up technologies in trying to gain economic advantage, we followed a path where we tried to maximize cooperation between the superpowers, bringing in most of the rest of the world in the process.  

The idea of sharing knowledge, rather than locking it down for private profit with patents, copyrights, and related protections, goes in the exact opposite direction of public policy for the last four decades. Nonetheless, it is important to get it on the table as a pole in public debate. People have to recognize that there is an alternative to the path that Biden appears set on taking the country, which would have very different implications for both our dealings with China and also inequality in the United States.

The cooperative alternative would involve maximizing the sharing of technology. The basic logic would be that the United States, China, and other countries we pull into the system would commit to spending a certain amount of money to support research in the designated areas based on their GDP and per capita income.

For example, we could require that a rich country like the United States would contribute 1.0 percent of its GDP to research and development, or roughly $210 billion a year, based on 2021 GDP. Middle-income countries like China might be expected to contribute a smaller share of their GDP, say 0.5 percent. For China, that would come to $150 billion a year (on a purchasing power parity basis) based on its 2022 GDP. Poorer countries might be expected to make a token contribution, or pay nothing at all.

Obviously, it would be necessary to negotiate the exact formulas. There would also need to be some mechanism for dealing with countries that refused to participate, perhaps applying something like patent monopolies to countries that remained outside the network. (I outline some of the issues that would have to be dealt with here and in chapter 5 of Rigged [it’s free].)

There are issues that would be difficult to hammer out in trying to work out arrangements for sharing along these lines, but the process of synchronizing rules on intellectual products is also very difficult now. The Trans-Pacific Partnership almost certainly would have been finalized at least two years sooner if not for the battles over the intellectual property rules that would be included in the pact.

The potential gains from this sort of sharing of knowledge and technology are enormous. Instead of looking to lock up new discoveries behind patent monopolies, a condition of getting funding should be that all results are posted on the web as quickly as possible so that researchers around the world could benefit. The Bermuda Principles of posting results on the web nightly, which the scientists working on the human genome project adopted, would be a useful model.   

The idea that science advances most rapidly when it is open should not seem far-fetched. We benefit from having as many eyes as possible on new discoveries and innovations so that researchers can build on successes and uncover flaws.

We got some great examples for this view in the pandemic. Pfizer reported in February of 2021 that it had found a way to alter its production process that cut its production time by 50 percent.  It also discovered that its vaccine did not have to be super-frozen at minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit, but instead could be kept in a normal freezer for up to two weeks. It also discovered in January that its standard vile contained six vaccine doses, not the five that it had expected, causing one-sixth of its vaccines to be thrown out at a time when they were in very short supply.

Imagine Pfizer had open-sourced its whole production process. These discoveries would almost certainly have come considerably sooner, allowing tens of millions of people to be vaccinated more quickly. There are undoubtedly other efficiencies that could be discovered both about Pfizer’s vaccine and the vaccines produced by other manufacturers, if engineers around the world could review their production methods.

Of course, the biggest gain from having open-sourced the technology would have been that manufacturers around the world would have been able to produce all the vaccines. We likely could have had enough vaccines for the whole world by the first half of 2021. This could have saved millions of lives and prevented hundreds of millions of infections. A more rapid pace of vaccination might have even slowed the spread enough to prevent the development of the delta and omicron variants, which would have saved the world from an enormous amount of suffering.

This logic applies to health care more generally. Why would we not want every researcher in the world to have full access to the latest developments in the areas where they work? Are we worried that a researcher in China or Turkey might develop an effective treatment for a particular cancer or liver disease before researchers in the United States? There doesn’t seem an obvious downside to going this route.

The same applies to climate technology. We should want researchers to be able to quickly build on each other’s innovation in wind and solar energy, as well as energy storage. Slowing global warming is a shared crisis. We should want to do everything possible to develop the best technology and to have it installed as widely as feasible.

There are other areas of research where cooperation may prove more difficult. For example, we may want to keep more control over communications technologies that could have military uses. But, at the very least, health care and climate are two major areas of research where both China and the US, as well as the rest of the world, can benefit from having shared and open research. And, if we can successfully implement a system of cooperative technology development in these two areas, we should be able to find other areas of the economy where we can adopt similar systems.

 

Will Cooperation Promote Democracy?

There also is an important potential side benefit to going this route. Back in the 1990s, when we were debating more open trade between the United States and China, many advocates of the trade path we took argued that China would become more liberal and democratic if it had a strong growing economy. The argument was essentially that there was a link between capitalist economies and liberal democracies.

In retrospect, that argument has not held up very well. China has seen very strong growth for the last four decades. Its economy is more than five times as large as it was when it was admitted to the WTO in 2000.  Yet, China is no one’s image of a liberal democracy. It’s not even clear that it has become more open in the last two decades.

This history should make anyone cautious about making broad claims on political evolution in China as a result of its economic progress, but there is an important difference about the route outlined here. If China were to engage in large-scale exchanges of knowledge and research in health care, climate, and possibly other areas, it would mean that tens of thousands of their researchers were in regular contact with their counterparts in the United States and other liberal democracies.   

Most of the actors in China’s manufacturing export boom in the first decade of this century were low-paid (by U.S. standards) and relatively uneducated workers in factories. In this story of collaborating in some of the most sophisticated areas of technology, the main actors are highly educated and relatively well-paid workers. They will be the parents, siblings, and children of the people holding positions of political power in the country’s government. It is reasonable to believe that they might have more influence in pushing for a more open and liberal society than poorly educated workers in a textile factory.

Again, anyone should be cautious in making strong claims about how a particular economic policy will lead China to a path of liberal democracy. But it is plausible that having relatively privileged actors in its economy, in regular contact with their counterparts in the West, could have a positive impact on the country’s politics from the standpoint of promoting liberal democratic values.

 

The Economic Winners and Losers from Cooperating with China

 

There is one group that is likely to be a loser from going this path of cooperative technological development: the most highly paid scientists and engineers, as well as CEOs and shareholders of the companies that are directly affected. To be clear, under a system along the lines outlined here, there is every reason to believe that accomplished researchers would still be well-paid, with the most successful likely getting high six-figure or even seven-figure salaries. There would still be plenty of profits available to companies that contract to do research in these areas, just as companies that contract to design weapon systems for the Pentagon can make very healthy profits.

However, we would probably not see the vast fortunes that many individuals and companies have earned based on their patent monopolies. For example, the pandemic probably would not have created five Moderna billionaires under this alternative system. We also would be less likely to see a company’s stock price increase more than 2000 percent in a year and a half, adding $170 billion to its market capitalization.

The Moderna billionaires, as well as the companies’ shareholders, were allowed to make vast sums because the company was allowed to patent and in other ways appropriate the benefits of research, much of which was funded by the government. If the condition of sharing in government supported research, was that any subsequent research would be fully open, the Moderna billionaires and its shareholders would not have profited to such an enormous extent from the pandemic.[1]

The smaller paychecks at the top, coupled with the elimination of all the waste associated with the patent system, will effectively mean higher paychecks at the middle and bottom. By my calculations, if we sold all prescription drugs in a free market, without patents or related protections, we would spend around $80 billion a year. That is a saving of $420 billion, or $3,000 per family, compared with the $500 billion a year that we now spend on drugs. That translates into a lot of additional money in the pockets of low- and middle-income people as a result of lower health care spending.

In short, going the route of cooperative development of technology with China is likely to not only reduce tensions between the world’s two superpowers, but can be a major factor in reversing the upward redistribution of the last four decades. It can very directly lead to less money going to those at the top end of the income distribution and increased real wages for those at the middle and the bottom.

The False Promise of Manufacturing Jobs

Many politicians have argued that the route of confrontation with China is a way to gain back manufacturing jobs that were lost to trade in the prior three decades. This is a classic case of the old line about “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”

The loss of millions of manufacturing jobs due to trade with China and other developing countries in the 1990s and 2000s devastated cities and towns across the country. The manufacturing jobs that were lost paid far better than alternatives in other sectors. Workers in manufacturing jobs could support a middle-class life-style in a way that was not true if they were forced to work in retail or other service sector jobs.

However, this is no longer the case today. The wage premium enjoyed by manufacturing workers has largely disappeared, as a result of the massive job loss in recent decades. Mishel (2018) found a 7.8 percent straight wage premium for non-college-educated workers for the years 2010 to 2016, in an analysis that controlled for age, race, and gender, and other factors.

That compares to a manufacturing wage premium for non-college-educated workers of 13.1 percent in the 1980s. This analysis found that differences in non-wage compensation added 2.6 percentage points to the manufacturing wage premium for all workers, in the years 2010-2016. But, the non-wage compensation differential may be less for non-college-educated workers since they are less likely to get health care coverage and retirement benefits.

This premium has almost certainly fallen much further in more recent years. The ratio of average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers in manufacturing to the private sector has as whole fell from 96.0 percent in the years covered by the analysis (2010 to 2016) to 91.9 percent in 2021.[2] The falloff in relative pay was even sharper using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Cost for Employee Compensation measure. By this measure, which includes the cost of pensions, health care and other benefits, the ratio of pay for manufacturing workers, relative to all workers, dropped from 110.6 percent in the period analyzed by Mishel, to 103.6 percent in 2021.

The sharp shift in relative pay away from manufacturing workers in the last five years suggests that if there is still a manufacturing wage premium, it is almost certainly very small. The reason for the loss of the manufacturing wage premium should not be any surprise. In addition to manufacturing workers facing the constant threat of outsourcing, there has also been a sharp drop in unionization rates in the sector.

In 1993, 19.2 percent of manufacturing workers were in unions compared to 11.6 percent for the private sector as whole. By 2021 the gap in unionization rates had largely disappeared, with 7.7 percent of manufacturing workers being unionized, compared to 6.1 percent for the private sector as whole.

Furthermore, in the last decade, as the manufacturing sector has gotten back some of the jobs lost to trade and the Great Recession, these have mostly not been union jobs. From the recession trough in 2010 to 2021, the manufacturing sector added back over 800,000 jobs. However, the number of union members in manufacturing dropped by 400,000 over this period.

This means that winning back manufacturing jobs from China, or other countries, is not likely to produce any substantial gains for ordinary workers. The jobs that we gain back are not likely to pay any substantial wage premium over other jobs in the economy, nor are they any more likely to be union jobs.  

Will They Get Us Coming and Going?

The opening of trade in manufactured goods in the last four decades was sold as a grand principle, advancing the cause of “free trade.” As I have continually pointed out, it was not about free trade in general. There was little effort to facilitate trade in physicians’ services or other services provided by highly paid professionals. As a result, the pay of doctors and other protected professionals rose sharply relative to the pay of ordinary workers.

And, our trade deals actually increased barriers in the form of government-granted patent and copyright monopolies and other forms of intellectual property. The increase in protectionism imposed an enormous efficiency cost on the economy. It also was a major factor in the upward redistribution of income in the last four decades. Many of the country’s richest people owe their fortunes in large part to these protections.

It would be truly ironic if we were to transfer still more income upward, with increased subsidies for research and development, with the gains locked down by a small elite with their patent and copyright monopolies. And, the compensation for these gains was a modest increase in manufacturing jobs, which no longer pay a substantial wage premium over other jobs in the economy.

At the moment, given the bipartisan consensus on confronting China, this outcome seems likely. We face a real risk that our path of confrontation will both further increase the upward redistribution of income and also doom efforts to limit the damage from global warming. And no one is even talking about it.

[1] The rule for sharing in research should also preclude using non-disclosure agreements to keep researchers and engineers from sharing their knowledge.

[2] There can still be a wage premium for manufacturing workers even if their average pay is lower than in the private sector, due to composition issues. For example, the average production worker in manufacturing may have less education than production workers in other sectors, or they may live in areas where the average wage is lower than for the country as a whole.

The post A Cold War with China, Global Warming, and Why We Can’t Have Nice Things appeared first on Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Government

New Hampshire Governor Vetoes Ivermectin Bill

New Hampshire Governor Vetoes Ivermectin Bill

Authored by Alice Giordano via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

New Hampshire’s Republican…

Published

on

New Hampshire Governor Vetoes Ivermectin Bill

Authored by Alice Giordano via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

New Hampshire’s Republican Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed a bill that would have made Ivermectin available without a prescription.

Ivermectin tablets packaged for human use. (Natasha Holt/The Epoch Times)

The Republican governor vetoed the bill on June 24, the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Some fellow Republicans questioned the timing.

It certainly seemed like a convenient way to bury a veto of a bill that won support from the vast majority of Republicans in New Hampshire,” JR Hoell, co-founder of the conservative watchdog group RebuildNH, told The Epoch Times.

Hoell is a former four-term House Republican planning to seek re-election after a four-year hiatus from the the New Hampshire legislature.

Earlier this year, the New Hampshire Department of Children Youth and Family (DCYF) tried to take custody of Hoell’s 13-year old son after a nurse reported him for giving human-grade ivermectin to the teen months earlier.

Several states have introduced bills to make human-grade ivermectin available without a prescription at a brick and mortar store. Currently, it can be ordered online from another country. In April, Tennessee became the the first state to sign such a measure into law. New Hampshire lawmakers were first to introduce the idea.

Both chambers of the state’s Republican controlled legislature approved the bill.

In his statement explaining the veto, Sununu noted that there are only four other controlled medications available without a prescription in New Hampshire and that each were only made available after “rigorous reviews and vetting to ensure” before being dispensed.

“Patients should always consult their doctor before taking medications so that they are fully aware of treatment options and potential unintended consequences of taking a medication that may limit other treatment options in the future,” Sununu said in his statement.

Sununu’s statement is very similar to testimony given by Paula Minnehan, senior vice president of state government regulations for the New Hampshire Hospital Association, at hearings on the bill.

Minnehan too placed emphasis on the review that went into the four prescription medications the state made available under a standing order. They include naloxone, the generic name for Narcan, which is used to counter opioid overdoses, hormone replacement therapy drugs, and a prescription-version of the morning after pill.

It also includes a collection of smoking cessation therapy drugs like Chantix, which has been linked to suicide, depression, and other neuropsychiatric conditions. Last year, Pfizer, the leading maker of the FDA-approved drug, conducted a voluntarily recall of Chantix. Narcan has also been linked to deaths caused by severe withdrawals that have led to acute respiratory distress.

Rep. Melissa Blasek, a Republican co-sponsor of the New Hampshire ivermectin bill, told The Epoch Times, that one could veto any drug-related bill under the pretense of overdose concerns.

The reality is you can overdose on Tylenol,” she said. “Ivermectin has one of the safest track records of any drug.”

The use of human-grade ivermectin became controversial when some doctors began promoting it for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Government agencies including the FDA and CDC issued warnings against its use while groups like Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) heavily promoted it.

Some doctors were  disciplined for prescribing human-grade ivermectin for COVID-19 including a Maine doctor whose medical license was suspended by the state.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/30/2022 - 20:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

The Jaws Of Trade Squeezing The Supply Chain

The Jaws Of Trade Squeezing The Supply Chain

By FreightWaves

The jaws of the supply chain vise are squeezing trade so tight that the headache…

Published

on

The Jaws Of Trade Squeezing The Supply Chain

By FreightWaves

The jaws of the supply chain vise are squeezing trade so tight that the headache it is creating will be a whopper for logistics managers this peak season. Port congestion is growing again as a result of labor and equipment inefficiencies. Trade requires people, and what we see in the CNBC Supply Chain Heat Maps is the people component in trade is behind this latest squeeze.

Shanghai is still in the process of reopening, and while there are more green lights on the screen, the supplying of drivers and people to move and make the product is slower than normal. This is affecting the delivery of critical medical devices. 

“The manufacturing plant in Shanghai was down for 75 days because of the ‘zero-COVID’ restrictions,” explained Gerry LoDuca, president of Dukal, which sells infection-control products and has manufacturing plants in Shanghai, Wuhan and Xingtai, China. “They are now operating 24/7 and they will be caught up by the end of July. Then the products will need to be packed up, shipped to Shanghai port and moved by vessel.”

Unfortunately, this delay is one of many being experienced by global importers.

Another vise squeezing trade is Europe.

Labor strife between the German trade union ver.di and the Central Association of German Seaport Companies (ZDS) is white-hot. Almost all ports in the German Northern Sea were impacted by a second warning strike last week that lasted 24 hours.  

According to sources, a final offer of a wage increase of up to 11% in 18 months was offered. Some hope for a conciliation procedure in which politicians or a neutral person become involved in mediation.

The delays created by the latest warning strike have added to the congestion already plaguing the German ports. Container ships are currently delayed by several weeks at some German ports. Logistics executives are concerned the congestion is going to get worse, as will the availability of empty containers to be filled with trade.

“The overall situation in North European ports is deteriorating,” warned Andreas Braun, EMEA ocean product director for Crane Worldwide Logistics. “Port congestion is on the increase as well as yard occupancy. The first shipping lines like MSC are reacting to the current scenario with emergency storage surcharges for both imports and exports. These surcharges will be applied after exceeding the standard storage free time and are in addition to the standard tariffs.  Although this surcharge is currently limited to Dutch ports only, and to date only MSC has circulated communication relating to the additional fees, we can assume that other ports and shipping lines will follow.”

Ocean carrier Hapag-Lloyd issued a notice on the increased demand on trucks as a result of this labor slowdown. And Maersk reported it would “absorb” the stoppage at its German terminals, telling customers that “in the interest of minimizing any further disruption to your supply chain, we will be keeping a close eye on developments up to and during the next round of meetings between trade union ver.di and ZDS, acknowledging that further strike action is possible.”

The U.S. logistics system continues to have its own host of issues with the persistent rail problems, chassis shortages and warehouses at capacity.

“Consumer trends are changing,” explained Spencer Shute, senior consultant at Proxima. “Buying patterns have shifted from home, electronics, casual apparel to more services. We are seeing buying apparel for travel and cosmetics coming back to pre-pandemic levels. Luggage, sunscreen, bug spray, these are items in higher demand because consumers need them in their experience pursuits. Larger appliances are not being purchased anymore. It’s an interesting dynamic to see how quickly the consumer has flipped considering what is going on in the economy.”

Despite the historic volume of containers, a pullback is expected as future orders for Chinese manufacturing have dropped anywhere from 20% to 30%, according to shippers surveyed.  Lumber orders have been cut along with orders for furniture, appliances and DIY products.

“But for other sectors like garments, sporting goods and e-commerce, they are still seeing strong demands,” explained Akhil Nair, senior vice president of products for Asia-Pacific at Seko Logistics.

Steve Lamar, CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, explained the continued strength in orders is a result of consumers looking to outfit themselves for experiences like back to school, back to in-office work and travel. But despite this demand, the impact of inflation is a top worry.

“We remain deeply concerned that persistently high prices — in our sector and throughout the economy — will begin to dampen consumer spending and harm American families,” Lamar said. “That is why, with consumers still being a driver for economic growth in our economy, we continue to push for the [Biden] administration to avail itself of all its own inflation-cutting tools, including relief from the high and regressive tariffs that are currently being charged on products in our industry.”

Alan Baer, CEO of OL USA, tells American Shipper the decrease in container volume is being seen.

“We are seeing drops by some customers from 30-50 FEU per week down to 10 FEU per week,” Baer said. 

The squeeze is on. Time to pop that aspirin.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/30/2022 - 15:45

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

5 Top Biotech Stocks To Watch In July 2022

Amid choppy markets, could there be potential in these top biotech stocks?
The post 5 Top Biotech Stocks To Watch In July 2022 appeared first on Stock…

Published

on

Should Investors Be Watching These Top Biotech Stocks In The Stock Market Now?

Just as most people think that pandemic woes are behind us, we now have the emergence of the monkeypox. While this virus may not be as contagious as the coronavirus, there is still a real cause for concern. On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the activation of an emergency operations unit for monkeypox. This signals the initial stages of a public health concern. Epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding believes that the number of cases could reach 100,000 worldwide by August. In light of these circumstances, biotech stocks could be gaining more attention in the stock market. 

Furthermore, the coronavirus is not going away anytime soon. Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) voted that there is a need to modify the current strain composition of available COVID-19 vaccines to target the Omicron variant. If this is approved, vaccine makers such as Pfizer/BioNTech, and Moderna (NASDAQ: MRNA) will need to provide modified boosters of their coronavirus vaccines. In fact, Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech (NASDAQ: BNTX) just announced a new vaccine supply agreement with the U.S. government. Under the agreement, the U.S. government will receive 105 million doses with an option of up to 195 million additional doses. With all this in mind, here are five of the top biotech stocks to note in the stock market today. 

Biotech Stocks For Your July 2022 Watchlist

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals 

biotech stocks to buy (regn stock)

First up, we have the integrated biotech company, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Essentially, the company discovers, invents, manufactures, and commercializes medicines for serious diseases. For the most part, its medicines and products aim to help patients with eye diseases, allergic and inflammatory diseases, cancer, cardiovascular, and metabolic diseases. REGN stock has been trading sideways over the past year. 

Having said that, the company received a boost on Wednesday as the U.S. FDA has accepted for review the EYLEA Injection supplemental Biologics License Application for every 16-week 2 mg dosing regimen. This specifically caters to patients with diabetic retinopathy. Should this go according to plan, the 16-week dosing regimen could offer patients a potentially longer treatment interval. Also, it will allow doctors to have greater flexibility to individualize treatment. Given such a positive development, should investors be paying more attention to REGN stock?

[Read More] Stock Market Today: Dow Jones, S&P 500 Falter; Walgreens Stock Slides Despite Strong Quarter

Sanofi

best health care stocks to buy now (SNY stock)

Another top biotech name making waves this week is Sanofi. The France-based company engages in the research, development, and marketing of therapeutic solutions. Over the past week, there have been several key developments that could potentially excite investors. For starters, the company and GSK (NYSE: GSK) announced positive data from their vaccine trial last Friday. The vaccine candidate is the first to ever demonstrate efficacy in a placebo-controlled trial in an environment of high Omicron variant circulation. 

Furthermore, Sanofi’s Nexviadyme (avalglucosidase alfa) has recently gained marketing authorization from the European Commission. For the uninitiated, this is an enzyme replacement therapy for long-term treatment of both late-onset and infantile-onset Pompe disease. This is a significant development because Nexviadyme is the first and only newly approved medicine for Pompe disease in Europe since 2006. On that note, would you say that SNY stock is a top biotech stock to watch?

Novavax

best biotech stocks (NVAX stock)

Following that, let us look at the biotech company, Novavax. In detail, it promotes improved health globally through the discovery, development, and commercialization of vaccines to prevent serious infectious diseases. Its recombinant technology platform harnesses the power and speed of genetic engineering. As a result, the company produces immunogenic nanoparticles designed to address urgent global health needs. That said, NVAX stock has been struggling to find its footing since the start of the year. 

During the VRBPAC meeting, Novavax highlighted data showing that its protein-based coronavirus vaccine showed epitopes across both the original strain and emerging variants. Therefore, it will be able to contribute to the generation of broadly cross-reacting antibodies. The company also provided pre-clinical data that suggests boosting with Novavax’s Omicron or prototype vaccine will induce an immune response against Omicron variants. Overall, there are reasons to believe that Novavax will close the second half of the year on a better note. With that in mind, would you consider adding NVAX stock to the top of your watchlist?

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals 

ARWR stock

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals develops medicines that treat intractable diseases by silencing the genes that cause them. It uses a portfolio of ribonucleic acid (RNA) chemistries and modes of delivery. Most of its therapies trigger the RNA interference mechanism to induce rapid, deep, and durable knockdown of target genes. Those following the medical space would notice that gene therapies have been gaining popularity within the industry over the past few years. Hence, it would not be surprising if investors are taking note of Arrowhead. 

As a matter of fact, the company recently claimed that its experimental drug fazirsiran can reduce the accumulation of mutant protein known as Z-AAT by 83%. This result is based on an open-label phase 2 trial involving 16 volunteers with alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency disease. For now, there is still no approved treatment for such genetic liver disease. All in all, Arrowhead appears to be making strides in the right direction. Thus, should you be keeping a closer tab on ARWR stock?

[Read More] Best Long-Term Stocks To Buy Now? 5 Semiconductor Stocks To Know

Global Blood Therapeutics

gbt stock

To sum it all up, we have the biopharmaceutical company, Global Blood Therapeutics. As its name suggests, this is a company that specializes in blood-related treatments. The company is currently focused on Oxbryta, an FDA-approved medicine that inhibits sickle hemoglobin polymerization. In addition, it is also advancing its pipeline program in Sickle Cell Disease with inclacumab, and GBT021601. Impressively, GBT stock has been on bullish momentum lately, rising more than 28% within the past month.

Not to mention, the company announced on Thursday that it initiated the Phase 2 portion of its Phase 2/3 trial of GBT021601. The study aims to evaluate the safety, tolerability, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the drug. So far, the preclinical results and data have been encouraging. Smith-Whitley, the company’s head of research and development, believes the drug has “the potential to improve on the clinical results achieved with Oxbryta® at a lower daily dose.” If so, this would be a huge boost for the company as it continues to work towards its long-term goals. All things considered, is GBT stock a buy right now?

If you enjoyed this article and you’re interested in learning how to trade so you can have the best chance to profit consistently then you need to checkout this YouTube channel. CLICK HERE RIGHT NOW!!

The post 5 Top Biotech Stocks To Watch In July 2022 appeared first on Stock Market News, Quotes, Charts and Financial Information | StockMarket.com.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending