Editorial: [T]he best way to counteract China’s mercantilism would seem to be by precisely the sort of U.S.-led multilateral cooperation that the Trump administration has rejected, in the form of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Trump agenda blames past policymakers for “turn[ing] a blind eye to unfair trade practices” in the pursuit of “putative geopolitical advantage.” Geopolitics, though, is just another word for shaping the world to serve all U.S. interests, with a minimum of conflict. And the real blindness consists in unilaterally asserting “sovereignty” and “protection” without regard to the legitimate interests of other nations, or their capacity for retaliation. – Washington Post
Peter Navarro writes: Today, after decades of trade deficits and a mass migration of factories offshore, there is only one American company that can repair Navy submarine propellers—and not a single company that can make flat-panel displays for military aircraft or night-vision goggles. Meanwhile, America’s steel industry is on the ropes, its aluminum industry is flat on its back, and its shipbuilding industry is gathering barnacles…That’s why, for both economic and national-security reasons, it is important to bring America’s trade back into balance—through free, fair and reciprocal trade. – Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
Derek Scissors writes: The bottom line is the President can still go either way, toward better policy or worse. The statement contained reasonable objectives and justified complaints, but also claims tilted to make trade look like it’s harming Americans more than it is. To decide between pro-trade and protectionist, we need to see the President’s priorities in actions. – AEI Ideas
Dan Kopf writes: The traditional analysis of free trade deals concludes that they have small beneficial effects on the aggregate economic welfare of large developed countries. The average consumer tends to be better off, while some workers in the industries facing new competition are worse off. However, these calculations tend not to reflect whether trade deals solidify diplomatic relations or reduce the chances of future conflict. And, really, that’s the whole point. – Defense One
Peter Navarro writes: Today, after decades of trade deficits and a mass migration of factories offshore, there is only one American company that can repair Navy submarine propellers—and not a single company that can make flat-panel displays for military aircraft or night-vision goggles. Meanwhile, America’s steel industry is on the ropes, its aluminum industry is flat on its back, and its shipbuilding industry is gathering barnacles…That’s why, for both economic and national-security reasons, it is important to bring America’s trade back into balance—through free, fair and reciprocal trade. – Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
Derek Scissors writes: The bottom line is the President can still go either way, toward better policy or worse. The statement contained reasonable objectives and justified complaints, but also claims tilted to make trade look like it’s harming Americans more than it is. To decide between pro-trade and protectionist, we need to see the President’s priorities in actions. – AEI Ideas
Dan Kopf writes: The traditional analysis of free trade deals concludes that they have small beneficial effects on the aggregate economic welfare of large developed countries. The average consumer tends to be better off, while some workers in the industries facing new competition are worse off. However, these calculations tend not to reflect whether trade deals solidify diplomatic relations or reduce the chances of future conflict. And, really, that’s the whole point. – Defense One
RSS Feed