The theoretical case against protectionism is very straightforward. Economic growth suffers when politicians interfere with markets.
The empirical case against protectionism also is very straightforward since there’s lots of data showing that it’s a job killer.
There’s also a political case against protectionism because governments almost always respond to protectionism with protectionism.
I try to summarize those concerns in this short segment from a recent interview with Neil Cavuto.
Unfortunately, retaliation by our trading partners already is causing problems.
Let’s look at a sampling of recent stories.
How about this headline for the Wall Street Journal?
Or this headline from Missouri?
And this headline from CNBC?
Here’s another headline from the Wall Street Journal.
How about this headline from Utah?
And here’s part of a headline from the New York Times.
There are hundreds of such headlines that could be shared, so maybe it’s time to look at the issue from another perspective.
Here’s a map showing the retaliation against American exporters. And it’s only showing the retaliation against Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs.
But I don’t want to be too depressing.
So let’s consider some good news. Most trade is still unaffected, at least based on this interesting data from the Washington Post.
Though maybe this is also bad news since it shows how much additional damage Trump can do to the global economy.
My nightmare scenario is that Trump imposes additional trade taxes, which leads other nations to respond with their own trade taxes. Trump then gets offended by those responses by levying another layer of taxes, which triggers more retaliation by other nations.And so on and so on.
Lather, rinse, repeat, all the way to a global downturn (a repeat of the Great Depression is unlikely since that would require big increases in income taxes and many other bad policies as well).
[…] protectionism work for Donald Trump between 2017 and […]
[…] protectionism work for Donald Trump between 2017 and […]
[…] tax increases on trade have produced bad results for the American economy. Consumers have been hurt, businesses have been hurt, exporters have been […]
[…] There also are added costs on specific trade-dependent sectors (agriculture, for instance), as well as future victims since protectionism by the U.S. triggers protectionism by other nations. […]
[…] numbers, the data surrounding Trump’s new economic policies is unambiguously good. However, protectionism and wasteful spending will surely offset some of the good news from last year’s tax reform. […]
[…] reelection campaign. As he imposes more and more taxes on trade (and as foreign governments then impose retaliation), the cumulative economic damage may be enough to completely offset the benefits of his tax reform […]
[…] Trump says we have to subsidize sectors of the economy hurt by retaliatory tariffs. That’s one bad policy leading to another bad policy (hmmm…., there’s a name for […]
[…] None of that changes my point that the economy suffers because of government intervention (whether Obama-style fake stimulus or Trump-style trade taxes). […]
[…] it makes no sense to fight trade wars. Especially when protectionist-minded politicians inflict lots of casualties on their own […]
[…] as many predicted, Trump’s trade taxes on American consumers are leading other nations to impose taxes on American […]
[…] This obviously has implications for Trump. He wants the economy to grow faster, but he is sabotaging his good tax reform with bad protectionism. […]
[…] Trump’s view of global trade is so bizarre, risky, uninformed, misguided, and self-destructive that I periodically try to maintain my sanity by reviewing the wisdom of one of America’s […]
[…] many of the risks are homegrown, such as Trump’s self-destructive protectionism and the Federal Reserve’s easy […]
[…] I’m skeptical of his sincerity, as noted in this segment from a recent interview, but I also warn that his proposed tax cut is impractical because Republicans have done a lousy job on spending. And I also point out that it is ironic that Trump is urging lower taxes for the middle class when his protectionist tariffs (trade taxes) are hurting the same people. […]
[…] I’m skeptical of his sincerity, as noted in this segment from a recent interview, but I also warn that his proposed tax cut is impractical because Republicans have done a lousy job on spending. And I also point out that it is ironic that Trump is urging lower taxes for the middle class when his protectionist tariffs (trade taxes) are hurting the same people. […]
[…] that economists are lousy forecasters, I also warned that the economy is probably being hurt by Trump’s protectionism and his failure to control the growth of […]
[…] protectionist trade barriers, he doesn’t realize that the harm imposed on other nations is matched by damage to the U.S. […]
[…] that economists are lousy forecasters, I also warned that the economy is probably being hurt by Trump’s protectionism and his failure to control the growth of […]
[…] of trade, and I warned that Trump’s protectionism may backfire on Republicans because many workers and businesses are suffering the […]
[…] of trade and I warned that Trump’s protectionism may backfire on Republicans because many workers and businesses are suffering the […]
[…] words, protectionism is bad for America, even if other countries don’t retaliate (which they often do, further exacerbating the damage of bad […]
[…] I should have mentioned – as I have on many occasions – that Trump is sabotaging himself with his protectionist […]
[…] if he insists on imposing higher taxes on trade. Protectionism isn’t just bad for taxpayers, exporters, consumers, and manufacturers. It’s also a net job […]
[…] have raised the prices of inputs. But the company also is being hurt because other countries have responded to Trump’s protectionism with tariffs that will penalize the […]
[…] (Methinks the folks in the White House may want to reconsider their protectionist policies. It seems people understand that trade wars cause blowback.) […]
[…] fully agree with this excerpt about trade. Assuming he wants to run for reelection, Trump is being very foolish to push for more […]
[…] the economy’s positive job numbers. I said the data is unambiguously good, but warned that protectionism and wasteful spending will offset some of the good news from last year’s tax […]
[…] starting a trade war, President Trump is playing with matches in a gunpowder factory. Other nations are retaliating, creating the risk of escalating tit-for-tat […]
[…] about the economy’s positive job numbers. I said the data is unambiguously good, but warned that protectionism and wasteful spending will offset some of the good news from last year’s tax […]
[…] the economy’s positive job numbers. I said the data is unambiguously good, but warned that protectionism and wasteful spending will offset some of the good news from last year’s tax […]
[…] bad policy by China doesn’t justify bad policy by the United States. Especially when the main victims of Trump’s tariffs will include American consumers, workers, manufacturers, taxpayers, and […]
[…] already seeing some blowback against the United States. But as I stated in the interview, the big concern is what comes next. […]
[…] – Tariffs are taxes. So when Trump imposes $13 billion of tariffs on Canada and $37 billion of tariffs on China, what’s really happening […]
[…] Payback’s A B*tch: Americans Suffer Blowback From Trump’s Protectionism, by Dan Mitchell, at danieljmitchell.wordpress.com. There are economic consequences when you implement tariffs (taxes). Americans are paying the cost of these trade policies. […]
[…] couple of days ago, I shared a segment from a TV interview about trade and warned that retaliatory tariffs were a painful consequence of […]
One can always find these headlines, not matter what Trump does, or does not do. The “sampling of recent stories” is pure propaganda. But that’s merely on Dan’s head. It’s worse that I’m not even sure I can trust the data anymore. In fact, I suspect that the domestic economic growth that we’re seeing demonstrates that the benefits from a more level playing field may outweigh losses from additional trade barriers. In other words, free markets is not what we were observing before Trump — it was a global system of free-riding upon the U.S. economy. I do not see this being addressed by the high-minded thinkers at Cato.
It’s my own opinion, but I believe Trump’s tariffs are just a negotiating tactic, to get the other major countries to eliminate their tariffs.
The problem is that the other countries are playing the long game, thinking in years or decades, while we are impatient, thinking in weeks or months.
We’ll never get them to play fair, in the time frame we impose upon ourselves.
In the past 40 years I have heard the fable of free trade, and I believed, until I noticed that the trade deficit always grew, it was never positive. We exported less products and I saw the factories and jobs that were exported by creepy Wall Streeters and DC politicians.
Free trade is a myth. Tell me AirBus is free trade. Tell me the reason the Japanese pay 50 for a melon is because they allow the free import of US agricultural products. Tell me why Canada charges a 25% import duty on US cars while the US charges zero.
No I don’t believe in fairy tales. And neither should you.
The question here is: is Trump negotiating towards an ultimately freer trade or is he just moving core policy to more protectionism?
There is also the silver lining that I explained a few times before, whereby the international animosity the tariffs create, coupled with the explicit withdrawal from some of these constructs (climate change treaties, UNESCO etc), perhaps helps us move further away from a global regime of tax, law, and culture harmonization and homogenization run by international bureaucracies (like climate panels, OECD, IMF etc).
As I cautioned before, I recognize there’s great danger in straying from free trade principles for tactical reasons. However tariffs on 3.6% of goods may be a tactically worthwhile price to pay to push back the danger of governance by global bureaucracy. I’m sure the latter goal is something Dr. Mitchell can relate too. I do wonder though if my correlation is valid and also wonder if this is a quantitatively worthwhile compromise.