Many observers have bemoaned the fact that US politicians have not been able to put together an economic stimulus package. If one believes that increased spending is the right response and that it would have the desired effect, there is a better way that would work more rapidly.
Eliminating or drastically reducing America's trade barriers would instantaneously raise the standards of living of every US household and would lead to an explosion of new economic activity. Reducing or removing tariffs will allow all workers to buy cheaper goods and thus have more money to spend on all other things.
New jobs would be created to handle a larger flow of imports that would offset most jobs lost by removal of wasteful protectionism. Everyone in America pays higher prices so that a few companies can earn higher profits and pay higher wages to a small fraction of all workers.
In turn, corporations and trade unions that represent workers in those industries will grease the palms of politicians who wantonly follow the whims of their paymasters. This diabolical tendency is reinforced by short electoral cycles. It turns out that the House of Representatives required substantial concessions for narrowly approving "fast track" powers for US President George W. Bush that increased protectionist trade barriers to benefit many special interests.
Instead of assisting in the economic development of poor countries, the Housebill will punish them for success by withdrawing trade benefits granted by US law last year to textiles exporters in the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa. To appease the steel lobby, tariffs as high as 40 percent on imports will be considered, leading to turmoil in the global steel market and sparking trade conflicts. In agriculture, the requirement that the president must consult Congress on tariff cuts is a sop to producers of sugar and citrus fruit.
In an unrelated move, politicians have unconscionably caved into to craven demands by American textile producers to oppose exemptions from textile tariffs for Pakistan. Treating an ally with such disdain will do nothing to ensure future loyalty.
Adding injury to insult, a new farm bill to replace the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act would raise federal subsidies for US farmers. Five years ago, politicians promised to reduce federal farm subsidies. Over the past three years, Congress has granted billions of dollars in emergency payments to US farmers, making a mockery out of their promises.
Were the legislation approved, it would increase federal subsidies to farmers by over US$70 billion during the next decade. At the very least, this would go against the spirit of the Doha meeting. Should crop prices continue falling, the US may bump against the maximum limit of US$19.1 billion per year allowed under WTO restrictions.
Look out for phony attempts to include populist spending to disguise the wasteful pork spent on corporate farming subsidies. In a never-ending cycle, subsidies encourage overproduction and lead to lower commodity prices that lead to another round of subsidies.
As it is, US agricultural policy has mostly rewarded big farmers in a few states while raising operating costs that force smaller ones out of business everywhere. According to the Environmental Working Group, of the subsidies paid to over 2.5 million farmers, most were received by a small number of large farmers.
Tariffs and subsidies that promote domestic production come at an immense cost that tends to be less visible than the targeted benefits of protectionism. Some of these costs are imposed on underdeveloped economies that suffer from distortions in the global system of trade.
One egregious offense is in the area of protection and subsidies for American sugar producers. Most of the poorest countries in the world can and do grow sugar. Closing the US market to most of them condemns them to continued poverty.
While big growers and processors constantly seek more protection from the effects of low sugar prices, their actions go against the interest of American consumers, taxpayers and food producers. Almost everyone would benefit from the abolition of such programs.
Protecting American growers from foreign competition causes US consumers to pay about US$2 billion more each year for products containing sugar. And price supports encourage so much overproduction that US$1.4 million of taxpayers' money is paid each month to store 1 million tonnes of excess sugar.
While the benefits of a global trading system guided by simple rules would be widely shared, most governments cave in to pressures that lead to the politicization of trade policy. Despite clear rules for global trade and enforcement mechanisms set by the WTO, politicians constantly use trade perks to reward friends and punish foes.
It is bad enough that protectionism comes at the cost of fewer new jobs and lower living standards for all workers in the country that practices it. In a globalized economy, it imposes penury on trading partners, especially the poorest countries. If only American politicians would adhere to principles of free trade rather than their own self-interest.
Christopher Lingle is Global Strategist for eConoLytics.com
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS