What will he do? He will do whatever puts money into the Trump family pockets. You're welcome.
3
Trump's "fiery" campaign rhetoric and his empty promises to his base show how that base is leading on these issues. Everything is simple. Throw up protectionism around the US and strangle foreign competition. Those foreigners are probably too dumb to notice and retaliate.
That's the trouble when the mob is leading the self-proclaimed leader. His enslavement to his base holds the rest of us hostage and threatens to upend fragile trade deals, protection of the environmental and workers. Ours and theirs.
But in Trumpland, it's simple. Minded.
That's the trouble when the mob is leading the self-proclaimed leader. His enslavement to his base holds the rest of us hostage and threatens to upend fragile trade deals, protection of the environmental and workers. Ours and theirs.
But in Trumpland, it's simple. Minded.
2
One of your allies, NZ, would probably do more trade with the USA if you didn't have tarrifs on lots of our exports. New Zealand has no tarrifs on imports into our nation and our biggest trading partner is China.
I'. think marketing has more to do with exports you sell in foreign nations; I love USA 'sweet' oranges but only discovered them when USA oranges were the only ones in stock. The oranges were not labelled 'sweet'. I do not like sour oranges and noted that the Australian oranges were not labelled 'sour' either. It's the middle of winter in New Zealand. The big supermarket I was buying the oranges from doesn't stock them anymore as no one was buying the USA oranges and I'm sure they would have if they had been labelled 'sweet'. New Zealand oranges are labelled 'sweet'.
I'. think marketing has more to do with exports you sell in foreign nations; I love USA 'sweet' oranges but only discovered them when USA oranges were the only ones in stock. The oranges were not labelled 'sweet'. I do not like sour oranges and noted that the Australian oranges were not labelled 'sour' either. It's the middle of winter in New Zealand. The big supermarket I was buying the oranges from doesn't stock them anymore as no one was buying the USA oranges and I'm sure they would have if they had been labelled 'sweet'. New Zealand oranges are labelled 'sweet'.
1
"All he must accept is that the trading partners would be allowed — after negotiations — to retaliate proportionally....."
Trump's ghostwritten "Art of the Deal" makes it clear that there are only losers and "killers" in this world, and mutual cooperation and balanced negotiations are for losers.
From North Korea to climate change on down, we're in the hands of a would-be "killer." He needs to understand that killers ARE losers when it comes to such matters, and comprehending that would mean disavowing his own identity.
Please fasten your seatbelts, as the captain is eager to fly through any and all turbulence he can find....
Trump's ghostwritten "Art of the Deal" makes it clear that there are only losers and "killers" in this world, and mutual cooperation and balanced negotiations are for losers.
From North Korea to climate change on down, we're in the hands of a would-be "killer." He needs to understand that killers ARE losers when it comes to such matters, and comprehending that would mean disavowing his own identity.
Please fasten your seatbelts, as the captain is eager to fly through any and all turbulence he can find....
3
Nothing that Trump says can be relied on; he frankly conceded as much in an interview. The parts of Trump's "positions" and statements that aren't simple nonsense are mostly just false or grossly exaggerated. That's the good news, since if he really did the absurd and ridiculous things he has said he would, we'd be in even deeper trouble than we already are.
Trump has already done much to hurt the U.S., and will do much more damage in the months to come. But anyone who thinks we can listen to what he says and know what is likely to happen has not been paying attention.
Trump has already done much to hurt the U.S., and will do much more damage in the months to come. But anyone who thinks we can listen to what he says and know what is likely to happen has not been paying attention.
5
Blowing things up is easy. Making things work, well, not so easy. Just like Health Care.
3
Second Great Depression here we come.
1
The big question here is why globalization has not worked for the US labor. Since 1999 Americans have not seen a real wage increase and at the same period, the US GDP is averaging less than 2% growth rate annually! So where are the benefits of global trade? Lower prices has not translated to. more wealth for the vast majority of the American workers. Ignoring these facts will only weakens the pro-trade arguments.
5
It’s somewhat difficult to correlate but imports and our trade deficit have accelerated since the late 60’s with trade agreements being a primary factor. Likely caused by either being poorly written or not enforced. Also, during that same period union participation starting in the 60’s was 1/3 of the workforce and it decreased to 1/10 of the workforce today.
Unions have power/leverage only when they are large in numbers. Had the workforce level remained union as in the 60’s the story may be quite different today. Wages would be higher, more would be manufactured here, and countries with imports to the U.S. would have more comparable working conditions and wages. We would pay more for our products, but the worker is compensated with a higher wage and standard of living. Granted, balance needs to be struck between the two, but my view is that unions are not at the levels needed to leverage the business entities, and government to negotiate what is best for the American worker.
Unions have power/leverage only when they are large in numbers. Had the workforce level remained union as in the 60’s the story may be quite different today. Wages would be higher, more would be manufactured here, and countries with imports to the U.S. would have more comparable working conditions and wages. We would pay more for our products, but the worker is compensated with a higher wage and standard of living. Granted, balance needs to be struck between the two, but my view is that unions are not at the levels needed to leverage the business entities, and government to negotiate what is best for the American worker.
3
Foreign trade is exceptionally complex as indicated in this article. Moreover, Trump's first kneejerk reaction to everything is a lack of realization of how complex it is and brash statements of how to fix the problem. His focus is protection of American jobs in a few select industries. He chooses to ignore other industries or consumer costs of goods.
Nowhere in this discussion is any mention of what tariffs do to prices of goods and whether with tariff protections the volume of sales actually reduces jobs rather than increases them. If sales go down, then labor in the US as well as labor overseas loses because they can't sell the products that are too expensive.
What Trump needs to do -- and he won't do -- is hire some experts to work to work through predictions of the complexity of tariffs on individual products and then gingerly ease into some protections. But no! Anything too complex for Donald himself is not worth knowing. And will he hire experts? Absolutely not! He relishes bouncing from one shiny thing to the next one without even having a good recollection of the last one he bounced from.
Nowhere in this discussion is any mention of what tariffs do to prices of goods and whether with tariff protections the volume of sales actually reduces jobs rather than increases them. If sales go down, then labor in the US as well as labor overseas loses because they can't sell the products that are too expensive.
What Trump needs to do -- and he won't do -- is hire some experts to work to work through predictions of the complexity of tariffs on individual products and then gingerly ease into some protections. But no! Anything too complex for Donald himself is not worth knowing. And will he hire experts? Absolutely not! He relishes bouncing from one shiny thing to the next one without even having a good recollection of the last one he bounced from.
3
I'm not sure where the author is going here.
On one hand, he concedes Trump could surely do one-on-one deals, but he warns him that without the negotiated reciprocity of a formal trade deal, there's no guarantee the US wouldn't get the short end of the stick.
On the other, he says despite the immense satisfaction of bragging to his base, he could end up with American workers really punished economically.
I have yet to hear any economists say that a system of tariffs confers a lot of benefits for an economy or its workers. Frankly, I think he's going to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the risks of undoing global systems that over time have proved better in the long run for both workers and companies than the grand old age of tariffs in the 1920s that eventually ushered in the Great Depression.
On one hand, he concedes Trump could surely do one-on-one deals, but he warns him that without the negotiated reciprocity of a formal trade deal, there's no guarantee the US wouldn't get the short end of the stick.
On the other, he says despite the immense satisfaction of bragging to his base, he could end up with American workers really punished economically.
I have yet to hear any economists say that a system of tariffs confers a lot of benefits for an economy or its workers. Frankly, I think he's going to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the risks of undoing global systems that over time have proved better in the long run for both workers and companies than the grand old age of tariffs in the 1920s that eventually ushered in the Great Depression.
3
Mr. Porter would do well to carefully read "The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy," by Dani Rodrik.
Dani Rodrik, a prize-winning economist, is the Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
After reading this, I believe Mr. Porter would have a far more nuanced and less automatically-enthusiastic view on trade.
I also commend Warren Buffett's article in Fortune some 10 years back on trade. I'd love it if Mr. Porter reviewed that, discussed it with people he respects, and published an article on it.
Dani Rodrik, a prize-winning economist, is the Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
After reading this, I believe Mr. Porter would have a far more nuanced and less automatically-enthusiastic view on trade.
I also commend Warren Buffett's article in Fortune some 10 years back on trade. I'd love it if Mr. Porter reviewed that, discussed it with people he respects, and published an article on it.
1
I think that the issue with this article is that it fails to acknowledge the difference between enrichment of the workers and the enrichment of industry in general. The outsourcing of jobs has decimated the American middle class, regardless of how much the economy has grown as a result of it. Neoliberalism looks much better on paper than it does in person.
1
Why is there a zero inflation? It's because everything is outsourced. Thousands and thousands and thousands of workers in the Third World work on the backend of every big business in America. For the same price that the average worker in America gets paid for her and hour they get a day. Why am I paying a NYC metro tax when 1000's of people in India and the Philippines are providing service to Amazon and eBay that service just NYC?
When consumer goods can be shipped from China to the US for way less than it costs to ship the same item across the street. As a ecommerce seller I would be better off financial shipping and living in China than in the US all due to US congress laws lobbied for by Amazon and eBay.
The 1% keep making more and we keep getting squeezed.
The US should only do trade with countries that trade equally and are not our military adversaries. If China wants to trade with the US they need to open their borders for commerce, forget their developing nation status and clean up North Korea so it's not threatening the US.
When consumer goods can be shipped from China to the US for way less than it costs to ship the same item across the street. As a ecommerce seller I would be better off financial shipping and living in China than in the US all due to US congress laws lobbied for by Amazon and eBay.
The 1% keep making more and we keep getting squeezed.
The US should only do trade with countries that trade equally and are not our military adversaries. If China wants to trade with the US they need to open their borders for commerce, forget their developing nation status and clean up North Korea so it's not threatening the US.
5
Relevant Headlines
1. China imposes tariff on US car imports (2011)
(The Guardian, 2011)
2. China Hikes Tax on Imported Luxury Cars | Business News | US News"
(CNBC 2016)
3. China’s Taxes on Imported Cars Feed Trade Tensions With U.S. (2017)
(NY Times 2017)
4. Ford to shift Focus production to China in 2019
"The automaker said Tuesday it will start production in the second half of 2019 on the new model at its Changan facility in Chongqing, China. The North American model is currently manufactured at the Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, where it will stay until mid-2018." "Ford will import the Chinese-made cars to the U.S."
(Detroit News 2017)
5. After Years of Growth, Automakers Are Cutting U.S. Jobs
( NY TImes, 1 Day ago)
They are NOT cutting jobs in China. No Trump fan, but if China on average charges US Cars ~ 25% import tax, and the US charges 2.5% on Chinese Cars imported to the US, US workers can not compete.
1. China imposes tariff on US car imports (2011)
(The Guardian, 2011)
2. China Hikes Tax on Imported Luxury Cars | Business News | US News"
(CNBC 2016)
3. China’s Taxes on Imported Cars Feed Trade Tensions With U.S. (2017)
(NY Times 2017)
4. Ford to shift Focus production to China in 2019
"The automaker said Tuesday it will start production in the second half of 2019 on the new model at its Changan facility in Chongqing, China. The North American model is currently manufactured at the Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, where it will stay until mid-2018." "Ford will import the Chinese-made cars to the U.S."
(Detroit News 2017)
5. After Years of Growth, Automakers Are Cutting U.S. Jobs
( NY TImes, 1 Day ago)
They are NOT cutting jobs in China. No Trump fan, but if China on average charges US Cars ~ 25% import tax, and the US charges 2.5% on Chinese Cars imported to the US, US workers can not compete.
10
The only trade deficit that matters is with China. It is the largest by far and China uses its gains to undermine the U.S. militarily and diplomatically.
We should stop recognizing China's self-declared status as a "developing" country and eliminate the associated beneficial tariff that they enjoy. We should then apply a comprehensive pollution surcharge to all Chinese products entering the U.S.
Of course, the Chinese will fight such measures and retaliate, but ultimately have more to lose than the U.S. Yet the biggest fight will be from the 10% shareholder class in the U.S., which has benefited most from the existing arrangements.
We should stop recognizing China's self-declared status as a "developing" country and eliminate the associated beneficial tariff that they enjoy. We should then apply a comprehensive pollution surcharge to all Chinese products entering the U.S.
Of course, the Chinese will fight such measures and retaliate, but ultimately have more to lose than the U.S. Yet the biggest fight will be from the 10% shareholder class in the U.S., which has benefited most from the existing arrangements.
11
It does not much matter how logically arguments are crafted for or against what Trump appears to be doing regarding global trade. The most articulate pro-global trade thesis is contingent on informed, fact-based execution and not by the type of federal government the U.S. and the world is now struggling with.
Of what value are economic theories of global trade executed by a chaotic U.S. presidency and a child-like president?
Of what value are economic theories of global trade executed by a chaotic U.S. presidency and a child-like president?
8
Mr. Porter is too optimistic. You expect Trump to understand multilateral macroeconomic trade balances? The man won't even read the NY Post to get the gist of his own health care bill. Staffers even prepare briefings and he's still way out of the loop. Trade is no different. Trump looks for the PR win and anything that upsets Obama. It doesn't matter if the move makes no sense so long as he's promoting a brand and settling a grudge.
That said, Trump is responding to a political necessity which dates back decades. Namely, free trade is the better system globally but produces massive inequality on the local level. Global labor and automation in particular have undermined the basic economic security of the working and middle classes. Trade protections are not the answer either. Trump is picking winners and losers when advocating steel, cotton, or coal. Protections mostly benefit the owners anyway.
Clinton missed this message entirely. Trump used it but still doesn't appear to understand it. We need the pie to stop favoring big slices. Otherwise, even basic discussions of global trade are a non-starter. The conversation tends to center around manufacturing and commodities. That's old news though. We need to be thinking about the global service economy right now because that's next on the chopping block. If you care about trade, you need address the structural labor problem in our nation first.
That said, Trump is responding to a political necessity which dates back decades. Namely, free trade is the better system globally but produces massive inequality on the local level. Global labor and automation in particular have undermined the basic economic security of the working and middle classes. Trade protections are not the answer either. Trump is picking winners and losers when advocating steel, cotton, or coal. Protections mostly benefit the owners anyway.
Clinton missed this message entirely. Trump used it but still doesn't appear to understand it. We need the pie to stop favoring big slices. Otherwise, even basic discussions of global trade are a non-starter. The conversation tends to center around manufacturing and commodities. That's old news though. We need to be thinking about the global service economy right now because that's next on the chopping block. If you care about trade, you need address the structural labor problem in our nation first.
7
Fine analysis from Eduardo Porter and Paul Krugman:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/the-china-shock-and-the-trum...
December 25, 2016
The China Shock and the Trump Shock
By Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/the-china-shock-and-the-trum...
December 25, 2016
The China Shock and the Trump Shock
By Paul Krugman
Stop calling it "free trade." What we have now is corporate protectionism. Both Nafta and TPP are corporate protectionist deals. They do not benefit ordinary Americans but help the rich grow richer.
Free trade would be, for example, importing drugs from Canada and even India. That would benefit Americans.
We need FAIR trade, which is REAL free trade.
Free trade would be, for example, importing drugs from Canada and even India. That would benefit Americans.
We need FAIR trade, which is REAL free trade.
27
The Times would do well to read Michael Pettis rather than continue on its free-trade at any costs crusade: "Many economists argue that [a retreat from trade] will.. necessarily damage U.S. prospects, but they are almost certainly wrong... there is historical evidence that intervention can easily benefit diversified economies with large, persistent trade deficits, especially when these deficits are driven at least partly by distortions abroad. The case that most resembles that of the United States today is probably Britain in the 1920s, when its trade account was adversely affected by large foreign purchases of sterling for reserve and investment purposes. The British economy significantly underperformed that of both the United States and its continental rivals, with nearly a decade of unemployment in excess of 1 million insured workers. This changed dramatically after London succumbed to strong protectionist pressures, took sterling off gold in September 1931, and imposed the General Tariff in 1932 (with additional tariffs before and after in 1931, 1934, and 1935). As Barry Eichengreen writes of the British economy, “Its performance compares less favorably with Europe’s in the ‘twenties, when it persistently lagged its Continental rivals, than in the ‘thirties, when it closed much of the gap that had opened up in that earlier decade.” http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/66485
7
The first item on Trump's trade agenda should be to revise the WTO agreements designating China as a "developing" country.
The fact that China is still granted special benefits and trade protection rights as a developing country is laughable as China's economy is poised to surpass that of the United States.
The fact that China is still granted special benefits and trade protection rights as a developing country is laughable as China's economy is poised to surpass that of the United States.
20
Protection of hard won progress in labor law and environmental protections is a worthy goal in global trade. If that means a tax on imports from poorly regulated developing economies then it is a goal well worth pursuing. The mystery is: why aren't Democrats leading this initiative?
12
The difference is, as you may have noticed, Democrats are equally beholden to the beneficiaries of the Clintonian manipulation of the global economy since the 1990's. To suggest that the global economy as it exists today, is inevitable, or that the current system has been in place since 1934, ignores the fact that middle and working class wages have stagnated since those manipulations by Bill Clinton were implemented. I am specifically referring to NAFTA and the granting of free trade status to China. These relationships should be continued only if a cap is placed on annual trade deficits and environmental standards are enforced on trade partners. The fact that the US outsources its manufacturing to environmentally unregulated third world countries just increases this country's contribution to global environmental pollution, but with the benefit of allowing us to take a "principled" approach to man-made climate change. This is the kind of hypocrisy that garnered the short fingered vulgarian the presidency.
26