Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

"The euro zone is growing below its potential," Mr. Snow told British Broadcasting Corp. on Monday. "When a major part of the global economy is below potential, there are negative consequences.

Quite right, Germany should quit wasting it's Euros on the U.S. Government and invest them in the European Union instead.

Wish i had more Euros...

Not-so-subtle indication that Bush policy is to crack the European labor and welfare state.

And how would the Europeans retaliate, other than to buy US debt, which might exacerbate the problem.

"Quite right, Germany should quit wasting it's Euros on the U.S. Government and invest them in the European Union instead."

... and lowering European interest rates could be a good beginning. The main problem with this is a euro-zone inflation rate which is staying stubbornly above the ECB's proclaimed 2% target. However, over a longer time horizon, one is tempted to think that higher domestic investment could boost (labor) productivity growth and ultimately help keep inflation in check.

Its simple,

In the US companies call their employees "management" and make them exempt. Then bush comes along and does awazy with overtime pay. In the US the productivity miracle is by running a slave shop. My wife works hour after hour for no raise and no overtime pay.

In Euqope they have protections against slave labor and everyone here calls it welfare. My wife deserves time at home as do all workers, European or not. If IBM needs more employees they should hire them.

I have no idea how bush got reelected (but I sense fraud becoming increasingly obvious) but if he thinks he can export his bullshit version of economics to the rest of the world he has another thing coming. someone should tell him he no longer holds all the cards.

er...

other than _not_ to buy US debt, which might exacerbate the problem.

The notion that the US ought to "do something" about the dollar, of course, runs directly counter to calls for the US to "do something" about the current account. This whining about the dollar is in response to what so far have been limited dollar losses. Unless the unmentioned worry is that small losses could lead to more accounts selling in a sort of domino effect, there is no reason for the US to respond positively to Europe's call for fx manipulation. If the Europeans want a weaker euro, they have an instrument in hand to make it happen. The ECB could cut rates.

The US answer to current account and fx complaints is commonly that Europe should grow faster, demanding more US exports as a result. While more accommodative monetary policy would certainly help, the point has been made (by smarter people than me, but I don't remember who right now) that if more rapid growth were easy, Europe would already be growing faster. Neither side is willing to acknowledge that its policy prescription for the other side involves trade offs. If the US were to move in a more or less unilateral fashion to cut its current account deficit, US recession would be one likely result. A fall in US demand for imports and a rise in the US supply of exports implies that US trading partners would have to absorb more imports and export less - so either US trading partners will have to gin up demand rather sharply, or go into recession along with the US. Europe, for its part, is being called on to overturn a social compact created in part to undermine the political appeal of demagogues. Those two world wars cost far more European than American lives, so who are we to tell them to dismantle the policies put in place to head off another such war?

Self-falcification: how can lowering the interest rate, naturally resulting in capital outflows, result in higher domestic investment? Real-world applications of Mundell-Flemming will never seize to puzzle me... ;-)

I guess this is an instance where it's more useful to think in terms of monetary aggregates than interest rates. So, here, I guess I should rephrase my policy recommendation to "and allowing the European monetary aggregates to expand could be a good beginning..." but then again if there is ultimately no effect on the interest rate, it's unclear why investment would be affected in the Euro-zone (although net exports would be). Anyone can help me with this apparent contradiction?

Is it just that with a floating exchange rate and perfect capital mobility, theory tells us that monetary authorities are basically incapable of affecting investment? I am not so sure this squares with the empirical evidence (or at least, received public policy knowledge). Any suggestion for further reading out there?

"Wish i had more Euros..."
http://www.fxtrade.com for example.

Old Europe's problems with the Euro are all of its own making. Besides higher interest rates propping up the Euro, the cost of labor wrt other manufacturing countries is much too high.

For example, the hourly labor rate for auto manufacturing in Japan and the U.S. is around $24. In Germany, it's about $36. LIttle wonder that countires such as Germany are losing manufacturing jobs to to other countries. Europe simply needs to get more competitive.

KHarris

"Europe, for its part, is being called on to overturn a social compact created in part to undermine the political appeal of demagogues. Those two world wars cost far more European than American lives, so who are we to tell them to dismantle the policies put in place to head off another such war?"

Nicely argued. Robert Rubin used to repeat at each turn, a strong dollar in in America's interest. There is reason to believe Europe may find the same for a strong Euro. American competitiveness increased significantly suring the strong dollar years, and Europe to my thinking may be experiencing some to much of the same. I would gladly switch to a strong dollar, for it would show off a fiscal soundness and economic well-being that I now fret about.

"For example, the hourly labor rate for auto manufacturing in Japan and the U.S. is around $24. In Germany, it's about $36. LIttle wonder that countries such as Germany are losing manufacturing jobs to to other countries. Europe simply needs to get more competitive."

Pleasing to be an auto worker in Germany and France, and why should the hard won gains of unions be given away?

"Europe simply needs to get more competitive."

Interesting thought given that it is the US which is running a current account deficit... :-] Perhaps did we forget to factor in the high European productivity per labor hour in the manufacturing sector? Truely, there is not a single macroeconomic fact about the EU that will not be turned by some into an argument for shedding the European social welfare system.

"There is reason to believe Europe may find the same for a strong Euro."

A similar argument was made about the DM within Europe some years ago. I can think of reasons why this proposition may be correct but I have never seen the corresponding arguments made in a mathematically coherent way.

"Truely, there is not a single macroeconomic fact about the EU that will not be turned by some into an argument for shedding the European social welfare system."

Again, well argued.

November 4, 2004

Volkswagen Averts Strike by German Workers
By MARK LANDLER - New York Times

FRANKFURT - Volkswagen averted the first full-scale strike in its history on Wednesday, offering its factory workers a seven-year job guarantee in return for a 28-month freeze in wages.

The agreement, which came after a marathon bargaining session, achieves two equally important objectives for Volkswagen: it will reduce labor costs nearly one-third by 2011 and it will preserve labor harmony at a company that is a German industrial icon.

Volkswagen's union, IG Metall, had staged warning strikes at several factories to press for a pay increase of 4 percent. But even as it threatened broader disruption, the union later gave up this demand - accepting a face-saving compromise that it must now try to sell to its members.

In a largely symbolic gesture, Volkswagen will make a one-time payment of 1,000 euros to the 103,000 workers covered by the contract. The company also pledged to invest in six plants in western Germany, which workers fear are in danger of losing production to lower-cost factories in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and other Central European countries.

"We achieved our goal of securing jobs, not just for today but for the future," Hartmut Meine, the chief negotiator of IG Metall, said to reporters in Hanover, where the talks were held.

Volkswagen said the agreement freed it from a labor contract that provided higher pay rates than those at any other German carmaker and imposed rigid rules on overtime and the hiring of new employees.

"From now on, new employees will work on the same level as our competitors," said Dirk Grosse-Leege, a spokesman for Volkswagen. "We never asked as much from workers as in this round of negotiations."

Volkswagen's face-off with the union was closely watched here as a test of whether German auto workers - and VW employees in particular - could maintain their privileged position as the best-paid, best-treated workers in an increasingly competitive global industry.

Other carmakers, including DaimlerChrysler and the Opel division of General Motors, have demanded concessions on wages and work rules, as they struggle to reduce labor costs. G.M. said recently it would reduce its European work force by 12,000 jobs, most of them in Germany. In the Volkswagen negotiations, however, Germany's long tradition of worker-management consensus prevailed over the union's protests and the company's not-so-veiled threats of job cuts.

"The fact that they did reach an agreement, given the complexity of the issues and the hardness of the positions, shows a remarkable ability to work together," said Michael Fichter, an expert in labor relations at the Free University of Berlin. "It is an example of the social partnership culture."

Just wait til they see the Bush faith-based Social Security reform plan.

ok, econ semi-ignorant questions here.

1) With the EU becoming "hotter", would it make sense for China to switch pegs? Recall there's already discussion that they plan to be more "flexible" so it's not a matter of changing pe se but rather to what the change is made.

2) If it does change peg to the Euro, would this be a 'past the hump' point for the dollar? By this, I mean it appears there's a bit of a saddle in which the dollar can move without significant (if not catastrophic) impact on the economy but beyond which it's devastating. Would such a change be bearable or painful for the US?

Chinese economic policy is most carefully thought through. There is no reason to fear that China will change the dollar peg in a way that will foster a significant speculative play against the dollar. A strong American economy is much in China's interest.

Suppose we argue that a weak dollar-strong European currency will actually be a boon to Europe? The strains that have come will strengthen Europe's economies if the Central Bank will allow that it be so.

"Pleasing to be an auto worker in Germany and France, and why should the hard won gains of unions be given away?"

Familiar echos of union leaders of U.S. steel workers from the '70's and '80's.

Why indeed change?

Anne, "A strong American economy is much in China's interest." is a statement with which I used to agree. But the portent of this article, and related articles that note the Euro reached a record high against the dollar ($1.3047) plus the anticipation of it going higher (projected $1.35) (both using http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/2004/11/17/ap1661523.html as cite), leads me to wonder if the China will perceive it as still being the "strong American economy."

I note that the combined EU has an economic strength (in GDP PPC) very close to that of the US. I note that projections are for economic doldrums in the US not due to explicit external forces but due to internal practices. And finally, I note that an awful lot of so-called experts say China has already indicated it is going to unpeg. (example cite http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/041117/15/3ol2p.html )

And so my questions. From the point of view of China, and with the above facts and estimations, might it make sense for China to change to an EU peg?

Perhaps that should be rephrased. What advantage TO CHINA is gained by NOT making this change?

And if they make this hypothetical change, what impact would it have on the US? (For that matter, what would be the impact on Europe?)

Kirk

What is happening is pretty simple. Snow and Treasury want the European Central Bank to lower interest rates and eat inflation to constrain the devaluation of the dollar. The Europeans want the US to balance its budget and essentially go on an austerity budget to lower the supply of short term treasury notes so that the supply / demand balance will effectively re-equilibriate the dollar at or restore its previous trading level. It's all short term stuff.

There's nothing either economy can do in the short term to affect its growth envelope. Its short term performance growth yes, but not its long term trend. That is a long term problem.

The only way for either economy to stop the dollar slide is to adjust the market demand balance - either in the Treasury market by lowering floated debt notes for the US or in the FOREX market by lowering interest rates and suffering inflation by the ECB.

That's all folks. Very simple.

"Familiar echos of union leaders of U.S. steel workers from the '70's and '80's."

But remember, U.S. steel producers had not been investing in their facilities. Have EU manufacturers continued to invest in technology and equipment that has lead to increased productivity?

Kirk Spencer

Interesting argument. Reasons I am sanguine about China defending the dollar are need for as much stability as possible in an economy that wants to grow from 8 to 12 percent, the general support of the dollar through Asis, and the strategic importance of America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/business/worldbusiness/17australia.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Drug Dispute Snags U.S.-Australia Pact
By ELIZABETH BECKER and ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON - Nine months ago, the United States and Australia completed negotiations on a landmark trade agreement that won unusually broad bipartisan support in Congress. But a dispute over drugs, both prescription and generic, is threatening to delay the effective date of Jan. 1.

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia has become one of Mr. Bush's strongest allies, one of the few who sent troops to Iraq, and the trade agreement is meant to draw the countries even closer together.

American manufacturers of things from tractors to computers are eager for the agreement to take effect because it promises $2 billion a year in new industrial exports, which could create jobs.

But it has been dogged by disputes over the ability of American pharmaceutical companies to challenge decisions about which drugs will be covered, and at what prices, under Australia's national health insurance program. The pharmaceutical industry insists that the trade agreement should not take effect until its concerns are addressed.

In Australia, there has been a loud outcry that the pact could undermine the popular government program that makes prescription drugs available to all citizens at subsidized prices.

In the United States, American drug companies have complained for years about their inability to understand or influence government decisions about coverage of drugs in Australia. Prices for new drugs in Australia are among the lowest in the developed world, officials of both countries say.

In August, when the Australian Parliament approved legislation to carry out the trade agreement, Mr. Howard, then running for re-election, accepted amendments aimed at ensuring the availability of inexpensive generic drugs. The opposition Labor Party demanded those changes.

Those amendments infuriated American pharmaceutical companies and helped force trade negotiators back to the table. Both countries say they are optimistic that they can find a solution, but the agreement will not take effect unless the United States accepts the Australian legislation or Australia agrees to change it.

Frank Vargo, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, an American trade group, said: 'It's unfortunate that the Australian Parliament chose to change the terms after the agreement was signed. We are urging all parties to be as flexible as possible and to move as quickly as possible to resolve these issues.'

An American senior trade official said that the United States had raised concerns with Australia about how its legislation affected American drug products.

'We are not happy with it,' said the official, who asked for anonymity because talks on the Australian legislation are continuing. The United States, she said, is concerned about copyright issues as well, but feels 'very confident we can work this out.'

Mark E. Grayson, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents brand-name drug companies, said the Australian legislation made it more difficult for them to enforce their patent rights.

Under Australian law, drug companies face fines of up to $7.6 million if they make spurious or 'vexatious' patent claims to delay the entry of cheaper generic drugs to the Australian market.

A brand-name drug maker can ask an Australian court to block the marketing of a drug that infringes its patents. But before doing so, the manufacturer must certify that the proceedings are 'commenced in good faith and have reasonable prospects of success.' If the court finds no reasonable basis for the litigation, it can fine the brand-name drug maker.

Critics of the trade agreement, like Peter Drahos, a law professor at the Australian National University, said the pact would undermine the government program that provides medicine to Australians. 'The large pharmaceutical industry has had the program in its sights for a long time,' Mr. Drahos said.

For Mr. Drahos, the agreement poses a fundamental question: Can trade agreements trump the domestic laws that underpin a nation's social contract? He strongly opposed allowing trade pacts to threaten those social programs.

Kirk,

The trigger for the collapse of the dollar could very well be one of the Asian central banks starting to move some of its reserves into euros. I doubt China will be the first, as this would be very destabilizing for the dollar, but perhaps one of the smaller economies might do so, acting as a free rider on the current system while protecting itself against dollar collapse.

See below for more discussion:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/#110006499975871703

Steve

"Familiar echos of union leaders of U.S. steel workers from the '70's and '80's.
"Why indeed change?"

Yeah, let's race right down to that bottom. Last one there is a rotten egg!

European union contracts often include bargaining over modernization and efficiency enhancement of plant and equipment by parent companies.

Kirk,

China has a reputation for thinking about the long term better than we do, but in this case, I wonder if short-to-medium term issues don't predominate. The US economy may be roughly equivalent in size to that of Western Europe, but shifting exports from the US to Western Europe would mean China would have to restructure its exports and go through a considerable period of finding its way into Europe's economy. The US is traditionally more open than Europe (probably one reason China chose the US as an export target), so the effort of restructuring would have to be carefully calibrated with the effort of developing markets in Europe, to avoid a fiasco - Europe might respond far more forcefully than the US if Chinese exports began to kill off domestic European producers.

China values domestic factory employment growth, which could falter is a European strategy failed. By extension, so would opportunities for entrepreneurs. Those two areas of employment growth are behind China's domestic boom. Kill one of the first two, and you may kill both the first two and the domestic boom.

China has a massive trade surplus with the US, while running fairly balanced trade overall. At least for now, maintaining Chinese economic gains requires exporting to the US. Future growth may be shifted toward other parts of the world - one argument for China adopting a currency basket - but Chinese policy makers almost certainly see the need to maintain their present export position with the US.

Regarding kharris' comment, I completely agree. The openness of the US consumer market allows for much faster penetration by Chinese products with a price advantage. Retail distribution alone plays a big role in this and is much more efficient here than there.

The WSJ today has an article ascribing 10% of US imports from China as flowing through Walmart! There was also a great Frontline on this last night.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2004/11/wal-mart-and-us-china-trade.html

Anne wrote, "Chinese economic policy is most carefully thought through. There is no reason to fear that China will change the dollar peg in a way that will foster a significant speculative play against the dollar. A strong American economy is much in China's interest."

And, "Reasons I am sanguine about China defending the dollar are need for as much stability as possible in an economy that wants to grow from 8 to 12 percent, the general support of the dollar through Asis, and the strategic importance of America."

This makes sense. However, is a strong american economy in china's political and diplomatic interest? It appears we are financing our iraq war entirely out of debt the chinese loan to us. And one reasonable guess at our intention is to control middle-east oil so that (in the event of a big disagreement with china etc) we can choose where not to export it. Why should they pay for that?

And should china depend on getting those loans repaid? Suppose we default, then how has it helped china's economy to give us a whole lot of stuff for nothing? Or if we suffer a big devaluation, they gave us a whole lot at 30 cents on the dollar, is that really good for them?

Various posters here make the USA sound like a bad credit risk who's just starting to get in over his head. When it's me making a loan I feel a lot better about it when the guy is saying "I have this plan, I'm going to turn things around, I need money to invest in my business and in 3 months I'll be re-investing my profits, in a year I can start paying it back.". That sounds risky, but not like "I gotta have money to pay my rent. If I can just pay the rent for a few months then I'll think of something.". And that in turn is better than "I've got first-rate guns and if I get too desperate then everybody better watch out.".

Sure, they want stability. But if stability isn't available, what do they do then?

KHarris

"Europe might respond far more forcefully than the US if Chinese exports began to kill off domestic European producers."

Agreed. Notice the faltering care with which Wal-Mart must proceed in Europe.

Again, in return for opening China's markets to American companies there has been a technology transfer required. This technology is being used in part to further broaden American markets for Chinese products.

October 27, 2004

At the Beijing Auto Show, Signs of a Behemoth to Come
By KEITH BRADSHER - New York Times

THE Beijing auto show is starting to look a lot like auto shows in Detroit or Frankfurt or Geneva, a sign of how China has become one of the world's great industrial powers.

The idiosyncratic, locally built clunkers found in other developing countries, like the Ambassador cars of India, are nearly gone. In their place are sleek models made in China by practically all of the world's multinational automakers -- sedans from Honda, minivans from General Motors and sport utility vehicles from Toyota -- and a range of locally designed cars.

Some of the local cars are cramped and underpowered, like the $4,000 ''minicars'' with minimal safety equipment or seat padding and engines that could belong in a motorcycle. Yet even these come with air bags now, thanks to the government's increasing concern about traffic deaths.

Auto shows, and the cars they flaunt, are windows into countries' souls. On display here is a China where the rich desperately want to live Western styles of life, even if they have mixed views about Western governments. But it is also a China that is trying to become more self-sufficient, with homegrown manufacturers presenting their own designs as well as the cars of their multinational partners.

''They're putting a lot of money into it to come up with a new aesthetic,'' said Ed Wong, a contract auto designer in Shanghai who works for many Chinese automakers. ''Some countries, it took them 20 or 25 years; the Chinese want to compress that.''

Joint ventures between multinationals and Chinese automakers dominate the Chinese market, accounting for more than four-fifths of sales. (More than 120 Chinese automakers share the rest.) But the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation, First Automobile Works and the Dongfeng Motor Corporation are learning to put their global partners' knowledge into their own cars.

Their auto-show offerings are less blockish and more sophisticated, making them harder to distinguish from the multinationals' products. One car, a cross between an S.U.V. and a minivan, created by the Chery Auto Company, drew particular attention as a design as polished and sleek as the Chrysler Pacifica.

''If you look back two years ago, the lines were less resolved,'' said Paul Blokland, the director of Segment Y, an automotive consulting firm based in Bangalore, India.

What is not clear is whether cars made by Chinese companies will become discernibly Chinese. Government regulations in most industrial countries now limit designers' options, restricting vehicle weight to improve fuel economy and requiring that front ends not be too sharp or too rigid to reduce injuries to pedestrians.

China has adopted many of the same safety and environmental regulations, usually choosing the European version because Volkswagen remains the largest automaker here. It has chosen the American standard a few times, and in a couple of cases has drafted its own rules, notably for fuel economy.

Apparently Europe HAS continued to invest in its industrial plants. Take a look at The European Dream, by Jeremy Rifkin, and The United STates of Europe, by T.R. Reid, two new books that discuss the EU economy. They had a lot of information I never picked up in the US press. For Instance: the leader in the cell phone market, by about 30% over Motorola, is Nokia in Finland, which apparently has no trouble designing and building first-quality cell phones; Airbus now has more orders for airplanes in its order books than Boeing; and William Clay Ford Jr. says his company's Volvo unit in Sweden is competitive BECAUSE OF the welfare state: the social welfare provisions in Sweden mean that Ford does not have to pay for employees' health care and this offsets the higher wages.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E1DC1431F932A3575AC0A9629C8B63

BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Casting Europe as a Virtuous Upstart
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

It would be foolish, especially after the recent report of an increase in poverty in the United States, for even the most committed proponent of the American way not to admire much in Europe these days: its reduction of grinding poverty almost to a vestige, its low levels of violent crime, the quality of its culture. And then there is the European Union, now 25 countries strong and, in fits and starts, becoming a peaceful global superpower, a breathtaking development given the blood-soaked history of Europe.

Jeremy Rifkin, the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, rightfully calls these achievements to attention in ''The European Dream,'' a book in which he unabashedly proclaims the superiority of the European model over the American one as a guide for the future. But Mr. Rifkin's book, ponderous in style and pretentiously theoretical, is unpersuasive, flawed as it is by two mirror-image exaggerations: one of the European virtue, the other the American fault.

Here is the overall idea: ''While the American Spirit is tiring and languishing in the past, a new European Dream is being born,'' he writes. That dream ''emphasizes community relationships over individual autonomy, cultural diversity over assimilation, quality of life over the accumulation of wealth, sustainable development over unlimited material growth, deep play over unrelenting toil, universal human rights and the rights of nature over property rights, and global cooperation over the unilateral exercise of power.''

That would seem to be quite a place, Mr. Rifkin's Europe, and some aspects are real enough, at least in some of the many variable countries that make up what Mr. Rifkin calls Europe. But this imputation of a unified and homogeneous Europe is an initial conceptual problem. The European Union includes Poland and Portugal, Britain and Greece, which are as different from each other as each is from the United States.

Anne writes:

"The European Union includes Poland and Portugal, Britain and Greece, which are as different from each other as each is from the United States."

And California is similar to Iowa, Texas and Arkansas?

I'd argue that apart from the language differences, the states in the U.S. are every bit as different as the countries comprising the EU. In fact, the EU countries share a lot more in common than New York and Texas, for instance.

The quote you properly argue with was from a New York Times review of Jeremy Rifkin's book on Europe :)

You want to really know what China wants in the end?

Hah.. how about a bankrupt America so deep in the red, our navy is mothballed? They extend credit and extend credit and take one industry after another away from American contol and then one fine day, boom.

Our economy goes off the cliff, never to return.

Last I checked, the economy in UK is doing spectacularly, even with a high pound sterling-dollar exchange rate. In my opinion, the biggest problem with the eurozone is the eurozone and not the US. That they're trying to pin it on the US is more responsibility-dodging/local politicking than it is a real argument. A stability pact of 2% inflation target rate with no flexibility and disproportionate responsibility on the larger countries to balance their budgets during recessionary times is bound to lead to problems. Plus the plan to absorb, what is it, fifteen?, new barely developed economies is, well, over-ambitious.

Western European government policies are also based on preserving a respectable standard of living while in the US our salaries go backwards and more people slip into poverty every day. This ultimately provides more stability than the bloated miltary budget and deficit of the US.

"I'd argue that apart from the language differences, the states in the U.S. are every bit as different as the countries comprising the EU. In fact, the EU countries share a lot more in common than New York and Texas, for instance."

Really?

Cost of labor in manufacturing (2003)
Denmark 26.60€/h
Germany 25.98€/h
Portugal 6.76€/h
Poland 5.09€/h
Lithuania 2.29€/h

Degree of Unionization (2000)
Poland: 15%
Germany: 30%
Britain: 35%
Denmark, Finland: ca. 80%
Sweden: 88%

Shhhh... Brad! Don't talk about how the Europeans don't like U.S. budget deficits! Glenn Reynolds and the rest of the schoolyard bully-right will go from thinking that budget deficits are an unfortunate aspect of the Bush administration, albeit outweighed by their "toughness" or "resolve" or whatever, to thinking that budget deficits are good things in and of themselves because they annoy the Europeans!

I think I've read a few years ago that in France to override unions concerns about robots, they had them (the robots) to pay a Social Security contribution. That would explain the greater degree of robotization than in the USA.

DSW