I explained last month that the World Trade Organization’s dispute-resolution mechanism is the best way of discouraging China from short-sighted mercantilist and cronyist trade policies.
The Trump Administration, though, thinks that the best response to bad Chinese trade policy is to adopt bad American trade policy.
In this interview, I fret that tit-for-tax protectionism is bad, and might even lead to a 1930s-style trade war.
The Wall Street Journal also is concerned, opining this morning about Trump’s self-destructive protectionism.
Stocks have given up their earlier gains since the President unveiled his protectionist trade agenda…the main policy concern is the new uncertainty from rising trade tension. China slapped punitive tariffs on 128 categories of American goods on Monday in retaliation for the Trump Administration’s national-security levies on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) imports last month.
…it sends a pointed message that a larger trade war would hurt American businesses, farmers in particular. …China’s retaliation is best understood as an economic and political demonstration, hitting a small number of products to signal where future blows could fall if the Trump Administration imposes punitive tariffs on $60 billion in Chinese goods to punish the theft of intellectual property. It’s notable that both Republican-leaning and Democratic states were hit. Tariffs on America’s biggest exports to China, such as soybeans and Boeing aircraft, were held in reserve. But don’t be surprised if they’re on the list if the President imposes Section 301 tariffs as he has vowed to do. …there will be significant collateral damage to innocent business bystanders, American consumers, and the overall U.S. economy. Mr. Trump risks undermining the policy gains from tax reform and deregulation that have teed up the economy for faster growth.
Amen, especially that last sentence.
As I warned in the interview, Trump is sabotaging the progress he made on tax policy and regulation.
Not a smart move since he likes to use the stock market as a report card on his performance. Live by the Dow Jones, die by the Dow Jones. Though, in this case, his protectionism means he wants to commit suicide by the Dow Jones.
Speaking of report cards, here’s a mock report card I created for the President. It’s not as amusing as the mock college transcript from Obama’s time at Columbia, but it highlights how bad policy – on spending as well as trade – is offsetting good policy.
It’s a bit different from the grades I gave on the one-year anniversary of Trump’s inauguration, but more time has passed.
P.S. In the section for “teacher comments,” I suggested that the President needs extra tutoring to understand that a capital surplus (the flip side of a trade deficit) is generally a very positive indicator.
P.P.S. Let’s not forget that Trump is also threatening to deep-six NAFTA, so there are multiple threats to open global trade.
P.P.P.S. Makes me miss the Gipper even more. Heck, makes me miss Clinton, since he was in office and played a positive role when NAFTA and the WTO were ratified.
[…] gave Trump a report card last year. Here’s an updated version, along with grades for […]
[…] a good grade on taxes and an upgraded positive grade on regulation, don’t forget that he gets a bad grade on trade, a poor grade on spending, and a falling grade on monetary […]
[…] Trump – As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, America’s president is an incoherent mix of good policies on tax and regulation mixed with bad policies on spending and […]
[…] Trump – As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, America’s president is an incoherent mix of good policies on tax and regulation mixed with bad policies on spending and […]
[…] Which is why I’ve also explained that Trump’s overall “grade point average” for economic policy isn’t very good. […]
[…] bottom line is that Trump has a very mixed record on the economy. But I fear the good policies are becoming less important and the bad policies are […]
[…] If trade policy continues to move in the wrong direction, I suspect Trump’s final “grade point average” on economic policy might be similar to Obama’s final report […]
[…] of all, it’s far too early to give a final grade. And, for what it’s worth, his interim grade is not that great. Good policy on taxes and red tape is being offset by bad policy on spending and […]
[…] observation is the easy part. Later in the interview, I was asked to give my two cents on whether Trump’s policies are helping or […]
[…] Post column, what’s frustrating is that the harm caused by Trump’s protectionism will offset the benefits of those good […]
[…] given Trump’s schizophrenic approach to policy, I don’t have high hopes we’ll average 3 percent-plus growth during his […]
[…] in April, I gave him a B+ on regulation. But then he did something foolish in June that (if I recalculated) would have […]
[…] Good policies in some areas are being offset by bad policies in other areas, so it’s not easy assigning an overall grade. […]
[…] Good policies in some areas are being offset by bad policies in other areas, so it’s not easy assigning an overall grade. […]
[…] Trump is a protectionist. He doesn’t understand the principle of “comparative advantage.” And he’s […]
[…] Speaking of which, here’s a great conversation between James Buchanan and Walter Williams on the meaning and importance of the Constitution. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. They cover lots of additional material, including spending limits, tax reform, and free trade. […]
“America is stumbling into a trade war with China that just might undo most of the good that the Trump administration has done for other parts of our economic policy. Yes, China is a huge threat to the United States. I’ve been shouting this from the rooftops for the past five years, while the neo-conservative conventional wisdom held that China would collapse of its own weight. Yes, China is determined to overtake us in critical technologies. And yes, China plays dirty.”
“SPENGLER
Tariffs Are Not the Way to Beat China
BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN JUNE 22, 2018”
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/thats-not-the-way-to-beat-china/
[…] real victims of Trump’s protectionism are the ordinary workers at the company. These people may not have high skills, but they are […]
[…] real victims of Trump’s protectionism are the ordinary workers at the company. These people may not have high skills, but they are […]
[…] change my tune once he got to the White House. I’ve written several columns bemoaning his protectionist approach, including a piece just two days ago where I criticized the President for blowing up the G7 summit […]
[…] because of his misguided protectionist views, Donald Trump refused to sign a joint statement with the other G-7 leaders (Germany, France, Italy, […]
[…] bad news, as I explain in this interview, is that his protectionist mistakes could trigger a repeat of Hoover’s beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism that wreaked havoc in […]
[…] policy changes (most notably, growth-stifling trade barriers) can partially or fully offset the beneficial impact of tax […]
[…] Reprinted from International Liberty. […]
Annual budget deficits greater than $1 trillion should earn trump a D-, not a B-, on fiscal policy. Grade inflation?
The ideal free trade agreement is just one page or even one sentence (“No barriers shall exist between A and B”). And there is creeping regulatory harmonization appearing in modern trade deals. But there’s still no question that WTO and NAFTA were steps in the right direction.
“P.P.P.S. Makes me miss the Gipper even more. Heck, makes me miss Clinton, since he was in office and played a positive role when NAFTA and the WTO were ratified.”
It was NAFTA that began to turn me against what was being called “free trade.” Now I hate “free trade.” Now I believe that “free trade” is all part of the Globalist Bankster’s general scam to take over the world and rob it blind.
Trade is not being set free, it is being placed under the direct control of the Internationalist crooks who know how to manipulate the system to serve themselves.
People who believe in “free trade” should not be so stupid as to miss seeing how their belief can be used to manipulate them. It’s manipulation similar to how scammers will use people’s inclination to be generous in order to bilk them out of their money by telling them they are performing charity work for the poor and suffering when in reality they are just stealing the money for themselves.