By Ian Fletcher
Author, Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why

Whenever protectionists like myself demand that the U.S. government do something to stand up for America in global trade, we are shouted down with the stern admonition, “You’ll start a trade war.”

I wish.

The reality is that nobody in America is going to start a trade war, for the simple reason that we are already in one. Foreign governments understand, as ours does not, that international trade is an arena of national rivalry, and they play the game in their own national interests. Our government is hostage to an outdated 19th-century economic theory of global harmony, and on this basis conducts our trade relations with blissful naiveté.

Am I saying that our policy is determined by a theory? No. It’s quite obviously determined by the campaign contributions of the multinational (aka “who cares about America?”) corporations who profit from it. But it is this theory that makes their demands respectable. All the money in the world couldn’t bribe Congress to pass a law requiring everyone to roller-skate to work; policy always requires some non-laughable justification.

Thanks for nothing, David Ricardo. You’ve made a fine mess.

(more…)

Dave Johnson

By Dave Johnson
Fellow with Campaign for America’s Future

The NY Times has an editorial on trade today, Keeping Protectionism at Bay. The editorial, written by well-paid New Yorkers living far from the devastated communities of the “rust belt,” explains down to us that it is a bad thing to “protect” our jobs and our communities and our economy and our democracy. (more…)

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

As we mark the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth, his most important legacy has gone largely overlooked. Reagan helped to put a caricature of politics at the center of the national debate, and it remains there to this day. In Reagan’s caricature, the central divide between progressives and conservatives is that progressives trust the government to make key decisions on production and distribution, while conservatives trust the market.

This framing of the debate is advantageous for the right since people, especially in the United States, tend to be suspicious of an overly powerful government. They also like the idea of leaving important decisions to the seemingly natural workings of the market.

It is therefore understandable that the right likes to frame its agenda this way. However, since the right has no greater commitment to the market than the left, it is incredible that progressives are so foolish as to accept this framing.

In reality, the right uses government all the time to advance its interest by setting rules that redistribute income upward. As long as progressives ignore the rules that are designed to redistribute income upward, they will be left fighting over crumbs. There is no way that government interventions will reverse a rigged market. For some reason, most of the people in the national political debate who consider themselves progressive do not seem to understand this fact.

To take the most obvious example, fighting inflation has come to be seen as the holy grail of central banks; a policy that it is supposed to be outside of the realm of normal political debate. On slightly more careful inspection, the inflation fighting by the Fed and other central banks is actually a policy that is designed to ensure that the wages of ordinary workers do not grow too rapidly. (more…)

Ian Fletcher

By Ian Fletcher
Adjunct fellow, U.S. Business & Industry Council

The price of living in the fantasy world of free-trade economics continues to rise for America.

Failure to recognize the pitfalls will probably mean a continuing struggle to emerge from recession, as much U.S. domestic demand leaks abroad due to the trade deficit, rather than being recycled at home. And America will continue to lose key industries: not just the primitive ones a developed nation should shed, but the high-tech jobs of the future.

Any serious discussion of free trade must confront David Ricardo’s celebrated 1817 theory of comparative advantage, whose tale of English cloth and Portuguese wine is familiar to generations of economics students. According to a myth accepted by both laypeople and far too many professional economists, this theory proves that free trade is best, always and everywhere, regardless of whether a nation’s trading partners reciprocate.

Unfortunately for free traders, it is riddled with holes, some of which even Ricardo acknowledged. If they held true, the hypothesis would hold water. But because they often don’t, it is largely inapplicable in the real world. Here’s why:

– The first dubious assumption is that trade is sustainable. But when a nation imports so much that it runs a trade deficit, this means it is either selling assets to foreign nations or going into debt to them. These processes, while elastic, aren’t infinitely so. This is precisely the situation the U.S. is in today: Not only does it risk an eventual crash, but in the meantime, every dollar of assets it sells and every dollar of debt it assumes reduces the nation’s net worth. (more…)

Robert Reich

By Robert Reich
Former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley

President Obama has vowed to double U.S. exports within the next five years. That’s because exports are critical for rebooting the American economy. It’s clear American consumers can’t get the economy going on their own. They can’t restart the jobs machine. They’ve run out of money and credit.

It’s not just that one out of four Americans is unemployed or underemployed (working part-time, overqualified, or at a lower wage than before). More significantly, the Great Recession burst the housing bubble that had let American consumers turn their homes into ATMs. Now the cash machines are closed.

So the administration figures foreign consumers will have to fill the gap.

Problem is, most other economies also relied on American consumers. Remember the trade gap? Americans used to be the world’s biggest and most reliable customers — sucking in high-tech gadgets assembled in China, car parts from Japan, shirts and shoes from Southeast Asia, and precision instruments from Germany. (more…)

Ian Fletcher

William BernsteinIan Fletcher

  By William J. Bernstein
author of  “A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World”

and

 Our screwy corporate-controlled media hasn’t even a keen sense of the obvious anymore.  But thanks to the USW International, I know to ask for tires made in the U.S. and am happy to report that our local Les Schwab carries Dean tires, and that’s what we’re going to purchase in the Spring when our snow tires come off.

I’m encouraging all my friends and acquaintances to make sure their tires say: “Made in USA.”  That’s common sense, not protectionism.  

Now, what can we do about purchasing U.S. steel?  How do we know?  

We need a big pillow to smother multi-national corporate greed.

Let’s hope that our international trade agreements become smarter and contain more common sense, so we build our economy at home and keep our workers at work.  

Jeri Iversen
Port Angeles, Wash.

Mike Elk

 By Mike Elk
Of Campaign for America’s Future

GOP Chairman Michael Steele blasted the Obama administration in a fund-raising email earlier this week for allowing stimulus money designated for clean energy solutions to be spent on overseas companies. Which is interesting, because stimulus money going to overseas firms was the direct result of conservative opposition to attempts to keep that money in America.

Steele wrote:

Obama Promised Recovery Act “Will Create Good Jobs That Pay Well And Can’t Be Shipped Overseas.” (The White House, “Remarks By the President and the Vice President on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” 4/13/09)

REALITY: Recently Distributed Stimulus Funds Going To Foreign Corporations Creating Jobs Overseas. “Nearly half of the $2.4 billion in federal grant money awarded Wednesday to stimulate the U.S. economy and boost the production of hybrid and electric vehicles went to six companies with ties to places as far away as Russia, China, South Korea and France. … But because so few American companies have the necessary technology, much of the money will initially go toward manufacturing electric vehicle batteries overseas.” (Jerry Seper, “Obama Sends Stimulus Aid To Foreign Firms,” The Washington Times, 8/6/09)

Steele is pointing out a fact that United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard noted months ago on CAF’s website:

Of the $1.05 billion in clean energy grants awarded by D.C., $849 million — 84 percent — went to foreign wind companies, according to an analysis by Russ Choma of the Investigative Reporting Workshop.

Gerard, who as president of the nation’s largest industrial union in the country was intimately involved in the negotiations, said :

A strong, broad Buy-American clause in the stimulus bill could have prevented the off-shoring of U.S. tax dollars intended to create jobs for unemployed Americans. My union, the United Steelworkers, and the AFL-CIO pushed hard for that language, and polls showed 86 percent of Americans supported it. Republicans and lobbyists for multinational corporations that wanted to spend U.S. tax money overseas opposed Buy American provisions.
Congress adopted weak, limited Buy American language. Now D.C. exports stimulus dollars to create jobs in foreign countries.

Republicans went all out attacking Buy America as “bad for America”. Republican presidential candidate John McCain went on CBS’s Face the Nation on February 8, 2009:

“I think it has policy changes in it which are fundamentally bad for America. For example, their ‘Buy America’ provision: that’s protectionism, and that did not work in any time in our history.”

As recently as October 2009, GOP Congressional leaders held an event to call for the rollback of Buy America provisions claiming that Buy America provisions were “costing American jobs.”

The truth is, as studies show, infrastructure investment can create by up to 33 percent more jobs when strong Buy America provisions are included.

It’s ironic that Republicans who make a point of using strong rhetoric against Islamo-fascist terrorists go mute as Wall Street economic terrorists attack our country’s manufacturing base by shipping jobs overseas.

Buy America provisions are supported by 86 percent of the American public who thinks American taxpayer money should go to create American jobs. Furthermore, as a recent Gallup/USA Today poll shows, Americans think the best way to create jobs is through protecting manufacturing from foreign threats.

Meanwhile, Steele issues another smoke-and-mirrors press release, hoping that voters won’t recognize that his conservative party is opposed to a policy that is essential to allowing American manufacturing to revive.

Gilbert B. Kaplan

 By Gilbert B. Kaplan
Former Deputy Assistant and Acting Assistant Secretary of the U. S. Department of Commerce

If you were going to start a trade war against the United States, it is unlikely that your first salvo would be on chicken parts, or as the Chinese rather charmingly first announced, on dorkings. A dorking is a five toed chicken that flourishes in Surrey, England. The normal chicken has four toes. If you have not heard of dorkings before, you are not the only one.

But this is where the Chinese government focused their retaliation earlier this week, in response to President Obama’s decision to impose duties on Chinese tires. To step back, on September 11, President Obama took one of the best and strongest decisions that has been made on trade issues in this town for a long time, imposing duties ranging up to 35% on surging imports of tires from China. In so doing, he overturned eight years of precedent established by his predecessor who had declined to enforce a trade statute called Section 421. Section 421 is a trade statute China agreed to as a condition to becoming a member of the WTO; and it is designed to deal with low cost imports from China that surged into the U. S. after they joined.

It is a trade remedy that makes good sense. As a benefit to China when they joined the WTO, U.S. duties on goods coming in from China were lowered permanently across the board, generally to a zero rate. But China agreed, in turn, that up until 2013 we could impose short term duties to off-set import surges that might result from this change, when the surges harmed our industries and workers during the break-in phase. Since that time, industry after industry in the U. S. has faced these import surges, but it was not until now that the U. S. acted.

The reaction from the Wall Street Journal, George Will, David Rockefeller writing in the New York Times, and many other supporters of the status quo was to declare the beginning of war and the end of trade as we know it. And to bemoan the beginning of protectionism. And finally, to invoke the memory of the Smoot-Hawley tariff and usher in the beginning of the second great depression.

There will be no trade war. For the Chinese to declare a trade war on the United States in retaliation for the U. S. actions would be roughly like Wal-Mart declaring a trade war on the American consumer or Walt Disney declaring a trade war on America’s children. The United States is the best friend economically China has. It is basically China’s free lunch. We have thrown open our enormous market–still the largest in the world by far–to Chinese imports and run a sustained trade deficit with China of over $100 billion a year since they joined the WTO. Our deficit with China is now over $250 billion per year. We lowered out tariffs to zero and admitted China to the WTO because we believe in free trade, but this was not something the United States had to do. We could have blocked their entry. So the prospect of China wanting to strike back on something beyond dorkings that would really hurt our economy is nil. Though they have threatened action on auto parts as well, this has not yet materialized and even the value of our auto part imports into China is small.

Nor can President Obama’s action be called protectionist. China agreed in its Accession Protocol with the rest of the WTO members and the United States that such short term safeguard measures could be applied against them. Just as their enormous trade access to our market is a result of the WTO agreement, so is the short term adjustment action President Obama took. The duties will only remain in effect for three years. This is exactly the kind of case this remedy was designed for. Passenger tire imports from China did indeed surge during the period of review, 2004-2008, increasing by well over 200%, and causing over 9,000 U. S. job losses through this year, and the closing or idling of many U. S. production plants. And to say that the application of this 421 remedy has been overzealous by the United States borders on the absurd. Only six other cases have even been filed under the statute. Of these, the International Trade Commission, a bi-partisan independent agency, has found injury in four others, but in none of those has the President ever imposed a remedy. This is the first in eight years.

And as to the dire warnings of the onset of the next great depression, the economic evidence all goes in exactly the opposite direction. We have lost millions of manufacturing jobs since 2001 in this country. If we do not take action to brace up the manufacturing sector and allow more reasonable adjustments to globalization, it will be this failure that will prolong and deepen the recession we are already in. Yesterday’s job numbers, showing a continuing increase in the unemployment rate to 9.8%, the highest level since 1983, demonstrate that.

The fundamental point is that many people in this country, including those represented by the commentators mentioned above and those wailing about the horrors of the tire tariffs are making an enormous amount of money by moving jobs to China, building factories there financed by Chinese government largess in the form of subsidies, and avoiding the environmental, health care, and corporate tax costs they would have to pay here. So they stand up against even the most measured trade actions, meant to help the American worker and manufacturer.

No, there will be no trade war. It’s just too hard to imagine the war cry, “Let the Dorking Wars Begin!”

***

 Mr. Kaplan is the Former Deputy Assistant and Acting Assistant Secretary of the U. S. Department of Commerce and he is currently a partner in the international trade firm of King & Spalding in Washington, D. C. He filed the first successful anti-subsidy case by any U. S. industry against China, which led to large anti-subsidy duties on imports of Chinese pipe into the United States in 2008. Mr. Kaplan can be contacted at gkaplan@kslaw.com.

***

This piece was first published on The Huffington Post

Robert Borosage

By Robert L. Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

“Vandalism” screams the cover of the Economist, depicting Obama leaving an ice pick in the tire of free trade. (No racial overtones there; after all, as the president explained, he was black before he was elected.) When the president imposed tariffs on Chinese tire imports, following the ruling of the independent International Trade Commission, the free trade establishment went ballistic. David Rockefeller took to the op-ed pages to warn of the threat of surrendering to the protectionist instincts of his union allies. Editorialists from the Washington Post to the New York Times sternly rebuked the president for deviating from the free trade gospel. Surely, the heavens will tremble; trade wars impend; the apocalypse of Depression era Smoot Hawley tariffs are about to descend upon us.

Nonsense. Obama isn’t descending into the old trade debate. Remarkably, he has added another explosive issue to his already crowded agenda: that of transforming America’s global economic strategy. At the G-20 meetings in Pittsburgh, he succeeded in gaining international approval – including that of the Chinese – for a continuing review of the unsustainable imbalances in the global economy. The decision on Chinese tires may just be the president suggesting that he may put some teeth into digesting that change.

Like health care, climate change, and financial reform, the challenge is inescapable. America can’t go back to borrowing $2 billion a day from abroad to act as the world’s consumer. Americans can’t go back to spending more than they make, maxing out credit cards, treating their homes as an ATM machine. Those days are over.

That means, as the president has said, the US must spend less and invest more. We must produce more at home, and export more. If that is the case, then inevitably the surplus countries, the mercantilist nations that have used export-led growth to drive their economies — China, Germany, Japan and others — also have to change course. They have to save less and spend more, import more and export less. If they don’t generate increased demand while the US cuts back, then the recession will return with a vengeance. This entails wrenching changes in public policy and private attitudes. But what’s clear is that the old imbalances were and are a constant peril, supplying the kerosene for the contagion that laid waste to the global economy.

(more…)