Time for the final installment in my four-part video series on trade-related topics.
- Part I focused on the irrelevance of trade balances.
- Part II looked at specialization and comparative advantage.
- Part III explained trade and creative destruction.
Here’s Part IV, which looks at the very positive role of the World Trade Organization.
My basic argument is that it is a good idea to get other nations to reduce trade barriers, but tit-for-tat protectionism is not the right approach.
As I explained when writing about Chinese mercantilism, the U.S. would have far more success by using the WTO.
Let’s look at what experts have said.
Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Greg Rushford explained why the WTO is good for the United States.
President Harry S. Truman and Secretary of State George Marshall successfully pressed America’s war allies to create the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade more than 70 years ago. Leaders across the globe, mindful of how economic nationalism in the 1930s had contributed to the devastation of World War II, wanted to open the world up again.
The agreement focused on slashing of tariffs and other barriers to trade—bringing unprecedented prosperity to hundreds of millions of people. The GATT, which evolved into the World Trade Organization in 1995, became the world’s most successful international economic experiment. …Despite Mr. Trump’s assertion that the WTO has been “a disaster” for the U.S., Washington has won 85% of the 117 WTO cases it has brought against foreign trading partners. Japan complained in 2003 that WTO jurists had stretched the law by determining that Japanese health officials used phony science to ban American apples. The real U.S. gripe is that foreign governments have won most of the 145 cases that they have brought against American protectionist policies. …Both political parties would be well-advised to consider the wisdom of Truman and Marshall. They understood that true national-security imperatives meant resisting protectionism.
And here’s some more background information from a column in the WSJ by James Bacchus, who served as both a Member of Congress and as a Chief Judge at the WTO.
…let’s say Mr. Trump managed to get his way and pull the U.S. out of the WTO. The consequences for the world and U.S. economies would be immense. Among them: diminished trade growth, costly market and supply-chain disruptions, and the destruction of jobs and profits, especially in import- and export-dependent U.S. industries.
The resulting trade barriers would compel some American companies either to downsize or move offshore. The global economic spiral set in motion by Mr. Trump’s reckless trade actions on steel, aluminum, Canada, Mexico, China, and Europe would accelerate. …WTO membership provides goods and services produced in the U.S. with protection against discrimination in foreign markets. Nondiscrimination rules are the heart of the WTO trading system, which currently applies in 164 countries and to 98% of all global commerce. …Instead of waging war on the WTO, the U.S. should help modernize it by making it more effective in addressing digital trade, services, subsidies, sustainability and intellectual property. Internationally agreed rules for international trade—and a process for resolving disputes about those rules—are an indispensable pillar of national prosperity.
I agree with everything in both columns.
And I’ll add one very simple – and hopefully very powerful – point.
Here’s a chart from the WTO showing that the United States is one of the world’s most pro-trade nations, with average tariffs of only 3.48 percent. Not as good as Hong Kong (0.0 percent) or Singapore (0.1 percent), but definitely good compared to most other nations.
In other words, it would be good if we could convince other nations to lower their trade barriers to our level.
Yet that’s exactly what’s been happening thanks to the WTO (and GATT, the predecessor pact). Here’s a chart prepared by the Confederation of British Industry, which shows how trade barriers have been continuously dropping. And dropping most rapidly in other nations, which is something Trump should be happy about.
The bottom line is that the WTO unambiguously advances U.S. interests, as I noted in the conclusion of the video.
But it actually advances the interests of all nations by gradually reducing global barriers to trade.
Is it as good as unilateral free trade? No, but it is a big win-win for America and the rest of the world.
Which is why, despite my usual disdain for international bureaucracies, I’m a big fan of the WTO.
Addendum: The original one-minute video no longer exists and has been replaced by a longer video that covers the same material in greater detail.
[…] the way, I realize that there are some people who viscerally oppose the WTO. I hope they can be persuaded to change their minds. But if that’s impossible, I want to point out that Trump’s […]
[…] this year, I shared a short video about the benefits of the World Trade […]
[…] A nation can import flags (or anything else) while retaining sovereignty. A nation can also make a sovereign choice to abide by a certain set of trade rules, such as the World Trade Organization. […]
[…] Instead, Trump should be pressuring Beijing to get rid of subsidies, cronyism, and other mercantilist policies (ideally by using the WTO). […]
[…] Toward the end of the interview, I pointed out that Trump should have gone through the World Trade Organization in his effort to curtail China’s protectionism. When the history of the Trump presidency is […]
[…] that’s good news for America. And the rest of the world as […]
[…] be much more hopeful if Trump used the World Trade Organization to push for good […]
[…] subsidized Chinese companies. That’s a legitimate concern and American officials should use the World Trade Organization to counter mercantilist […]
[…] WTO rules are quite good, they’re not as good as complete free […]
[…] presumably would cheer if Trump pulled the U.S. out of the the agreement – even though it has been very beneficial for the United […]
[…] of the “postwar order” should be preserved. The World Trade Organization definitely belongs on that list. And presumably nobody wants to disrupt or eliminate the parts of the […]
[…] wrote last year that the President would enjoy more success if he used the WTO to apply pressure on […]
[…] the good news is that nations have been building on the multilateral success of the WTO by also adopting free trade […]
[…] Dan Mitchell explains well that the World Trade Organization promotes Americans’ prosperity. […]
I see no mention in these articles about regulatory burden. SO,I will hammer that point one more time. Many of these countries that you point to as having low trade barriers also have low regulatory barriers. They pollute heavily ( and were allowed to opt out of the Paris and Japan accords) and they embrace very dangerous safety environments in their own manufacturing facilities. I could add all the other regulatory bodies that US manufacturing companies must address. But I think you get the point. Imagine an EEOC ruling in Singapore for instance. These countries sometimes even embrace child labor- a practice long since abolished in the US. Are their citizens less valuable than our own? Do they not deserve the same protections? If we buy their goods, are we supporting their atrocious work practices? In the US I have seen boycotts lately against products that somehow slighted some #metoo feelings. Come on Dan, this is about safety and health.