Round up the usual suspects. In any US presidential election campaign, you can be sure that protectionism will break in, as it has. But America's swing back toward protectionism started long before, with US President George W. Bush's steel tariff of 2001.
It was hard to understand what the underlying calculus was when the Bush administration imposed that tariff on steel imports. The tariff was bad economics: it made the US poorer. The tariff was bad mercantilism: it robbed more in profits and unionized jobs from steel-consuming industries than it gave to steel-making industries, and the former were at least as well-organized and vocal in Washington as the latter.
Finally, the tariff was also bad diplomacy: why should anyone enter into an agreement with a US government that appears eager to demonstrate that it will break its commitments for the tiniest of imagined domestic political benefits?
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
Unfortunately, the US' swing back toward protectionism did not stop there. It continued last year when the Bush administration, recognizing that it had no policies to boost employment, explored whether China's undervalued exchange rate might be blamed for closed factories in Ohio.
No surprise, then, that the Democratic Party has now picked up the protectionist baton. Its leading candidate for the presidential nomination, John Kerry, talks about how "Benedict Arnold CEO's" betray America by outsourcing jobs. Kerry's remaining competitor, John Edwards, talks about how the gap on trade between him and Kerry is wide and deep -- with Kerry on the free-trade side.
Trade agreements
The past three years have seen much less progress on freeing up world trade than almost any free-trade advocate would have hoped. Unless the swing of the pendulum in the US can be stopped, the rest of this decade will be as bad.
Neither the EU nor Japan can be counted upon to do anything more than allow themselves to be dragged kicking and screaming into trade liberalization agreements. Without aggressive US leadership -- which means a US executive and congress that believe in free trade -- trade liberalization simply will not happen, and there will be more "emergency" tariffs, "extraordinary" quotas and "voluntary" export restraints.
All of these steps will have minimal impact on the US. But they have the potential to cause countless disasters for emerging market countries that export to the US.
Can anything halt this swing of the pendulum? Absent a sudden, immediate, and strong boost in US domestic demand that turns into a durable boom with rapid employment growth, probably not. The fall over the past three years in the proportion of the working-age population with jobs in the US has been the biggest in percentage terms since the Great Depression.
American workers and voters are more anxious about job security and more willing to blame anything for job insecurity because they have seen the most profound deterioration in labor market conditions in the memory of anyone younger than eighty-five. That slack labor market is powering this swing of the protectionist pendulum.
So we probably must accept that protectionist sentiment will remain strong. But we should seek ways to diminish the time spent and the damage done at the protectionist end of this political cycle. There are two arguments and one economic shift that could accelerate a return to trade liberalization.
American jobs
The two arguments in favor of free trade are powerful, but by and large they have not been deployed. The first argument needs to be made by countries that export to the US: they should tell journalists, politicians, voters, and workers in the US about all the American jobs that would not exist without their exports to the US. Fear that expanded trade will destroy jobs and disrupt the US economy needs to be balanced by fear that reduced trade will destroy jobs and disrupt the US economy.
The second argument needs to be made by those who care about America's national security. The 21st century will see the world constantly at war against terrorism.
An important part of that war will consist of shaping the foes of terrorism into a durable alliance.? Increased world trade can be an important part of that alliance-building process.
An economic shift also needs to be carried out by Europe and Japan: a shift from deflation to reflation. Strong demand growth in Japan and Europe that produces a higher level of US exports would be the most powerful pro-trade liberalization force imaginable.
For too long, Europe and Japan have subordinated the quest for full employment to other goals, whether extremely low inflation (Europe) or avoiding the costs of a bubble economy (Japan). Convincing ordinary American voters that trade liberalization is a positive force will be easier when the US is not the only locomotive pulling world demand forward, and not the world's importer of last resort.
Bradford DeLong is professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and was assistant US treasury secretary during the Clinton presidency. Copyright: Project Syndicate
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS