Remember the big debate about whether Trump was a closet free trader or a crude protectionist?
Some people claimed he was imposing tariffs and threatening other nations in order to get them to reduce trade barriers.
From the beginning, I was skeptical of this argument, but also acknowledged that we wouldn’t know for sure until we saw a Trump-negotiated deal.
Well, I point out in this interview that my skepticism was warranted. Trump unveiled a quasi-deal on NAFTA yesterday, and it unquestionably will reduce economic liberty.
There’s a lot we still don’t know. Especially about whether this new agreement will actually get approved.
But Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute has a very succinct explanation of the good and bad. He agree with me that it’s good to remove uncertainty.
(1) The best thing about the agreement — if it holds — is that it will remove the extreme uncertainty for businesses in all three NAFTA economies.
And I’m guessing he also agrees that a weakened NAFTA is better than no NAFTA.
By the way, Administration officials have told me that there are a few good provisions, involving matters such as digital goods and property rights.
But Barfield’s list of bad provisions easily trumps (no pun intended) any positive changes.
(2) The tentative “rules of origin” provisions for autos are an abomination — so complex and anti-competitive that they invite endless litigation and corruption (rules of origin govern what percentage of a final product must come from the three NAFTA nations).
(3) The old NAFTA dispute settlement system for investors has been gutted, leaving US industry and Congress with a huge dilemma as to whether to support the new pact.
(4) The auto/labor provisions (forcing Mexico to pay workers $16/hour for a number of jobs in Mexican auto plants, or four times the average hourly pay in Mexico) is a terrible precedent for mandating changes in domestic policy through a trade agreement.
Point #4 is especially terrible. It basically seeks to set wage levels above productivity levels in Mexico, which is a recipe for more unemployment in that already shaky economy (by the way, someone should tell Trump this will lead to more illegal migration from Mexico to the U.S.).
This is the same theory that the French and Germans use when trying to undermine tax competition. It’s supposedly unfair, they argue, when other countries have lower tax rates.
The bottom line is that Trump is hurting America. NAFTA has been good news for the United States, producing more jobs, more exports, and higher living standards.
When grading Trump’s overall economic policy, we just got a big chunk of bad policy to offset some of the good policy.
Sad!
[…] not just that Trump is a big spender (and a protectionist). Every major Republican in the post-Reagan era has expanded the burden of government and rejected […]
[…] But Washington and Brussels also will play a role since the U.K. wants to sign free-trade agreements. This could be a problem since the E.U. will be tempted to behave in a spiteful manner and Trump and his trade team are protectionists. […]
[…] mentioned in the interview that Trump’s protectionism meant that he was harming both nations. This is what always happens with protectionism, so I […]
[…] and bluster in 2017. Sadly, bad rhetoric became bad policy in 2018. And, just as many predicted, Trump’s trade taxes on American consumers are leading other nations to impose taxes on American […]
[…] new NAFTA deal (which now has the clunky acronym of USMCA), largely because not much changed since the partial deal with Mexico was […]
[…] this week, Neil Cavuto asked me about the politics of trade, and I warned that Trump’s protectionism may backfire on Republicans because many workers and businesses are suffering the […]
[…] this week, Neil Cavuto asked me about the politics of trade and I warned that Trump’s protectionism may backfire on Republicans because many workers and businesses are suffering the […]
[…] other nations to lower trade barriers, that would be a win-win scenario. Unfortunately, if the revised North American Free Trade Agreement is any indication, that doesn’t seem to be the Trump administration’s […]
[…] other nations to lower trade barriers, that would be a win-win scenario. Unfortunately, if the revised North American Free Trade Agreement is any indication, that doesn’t seem to be the Trump administration’s […]
[…] if Trump goes really crazy with his protectionism (and he has lots of bad policies under consideration – dealing with NAFTA, auto trade, China, […]
We need to see what they contain when all deals are final. Current deals are part of the negotiation of other deals. Acting tough now gives substance to future negotiations. Current negotiations can be modified later.
[…] And in response, supply-side icon Dan Mitchell and AEI’s Claude Barfield explained their concerns: […]
I disagree with Dan’s read on this. I think Trump has improved a bad deal here. Whatever it does for Mexico/Canada and US relations, it will also force other nations to come to the table to renegotiate their so-called trade deals. This time with a better negotiator at the table. So, even if it does sacrifice a bit on the NAFTA parade, it will help to let the others know they had better get lined up rather than just dissing our president- or continue to do so at their own peril. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. tell me what that means to me.
I have not read much on the revised agreement, but don’t think it forces ‘Mexico’ to pay $16 per hour. It’s more likely that it calls for xx percent of production to be produced by workers who make at least $16 per hour. i.e., more likely a way to ensure a certain level of production is made in higher-wage USA (and maybe Canada). Again, I’m not sure… but seems more reasonable.