Biden’s ‘cloak of woke’ trade policy

Free trade has been under attack, and has been since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) nearly three decades ago. But it wasn’t until Donald Trump took office that trade deals came under the scrutiny of vocal nationalists, protectionists and isolationists from both the left and right. As Trump proudly explained in 2018: “I’m a customs guy!”

Unfortunately, if today’s staunch advocates of free trade were to hold an annual conference, it would most likely be in a broom closet.

Assuming that free trade (actually managed trade) is a desirable goal, how likely is it that the US and the world will return to the relatively open, rules-based, liberalizing framework that we used to have? The general economic conditions are certainly right. In 2022 global trade It is expected will return to pre-pandemic levels and global GDP will reach 4.4 percent.

From a US perspective, the foreign trade challenges facing the nation are numerous and varied. (A full compendium is published annually in the government’s National Trade Assessment on Foreign Trade Barriers.) While average tariff rates are low — 5 percent in general, 2 percent in the US — it is non-tariff barriers that are most problematic.

In Brazil, for example, subsidy programs, import licenses, and tariff and service barriers are notable obstacles for US firms, while in China, cyber-enhanced theft, technology transfer printing, and investment restrictions are stifling US business. The protection of intellectual property is a serious problem in both nations.

But is the United States a paragon of trade virtues when it comes to free trade? Not at all. The US President can impose tariffs at will. As a matter of fact, President TrumpFormer West Virginia MP Donald Trump pleads guilty to Jan. 6 case. Trump is scheduled to hold a rally in Michigan in April imposed tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on imported aluminum from most countries in 2018, arguing that these safeguards are necessary to U.S. national security by maintaining healthy domestic production. The US also imposed a range of tariffs on China, ranging from 3 percent to 20 percent; but the two nations agreed that the US would lower that rate in exchange for China buying an additional $200 billion worth of goods from the US by December 2021. (To date, China has honored only 57 percent this obligation.)

In addition to US restrictions on foreign investment in energy, transportation, financial services, etc state and municipal purchases, The US retains “Buy American” regulations governing the $1.7 trillion procurement market. This applies to all iron, steel and finished products used in public works and construction projects. President BidenJoe Biden Defense & National Security – Biden sends new alert to China Energy & Environment – Home to continue oil leasing plans Healthcare – Fauci warns cases will rise again MORE recently announced even stricter “Buy American” requirements, Requirement that at least 60 percent of the products purchased under the Program are manufactured in the United States

What are the effects of American protectionism? Examples abound. Trump tariffs on steel meanwhile cost US consumers $900,000 and $1.2 million per steel job saved, as companies had to pay 10 percent more for steel. With thousands of companies using more steel than they produce steel, one can see the economic illogicality at play. Protectionism against building materials such as Canadian softwood has pushed up home prices, and government price supports for sugar are costing consumers $3 billion with higher food prices.

Most interesting, however, is a comprehensive study on the impact of the 2018 trade war. It found imports fell 31.5 percent and exports 11 percent, and annual consumer and producer losses to higher import costs were nearly $70 billion . Ironically, workers were hardest hit in heavily republican counties.

The benefits of trade are numerous and include better resource allocation, increased productivity, economies of scale, higher wages, job growth in export industries, and greater choice and lower prices for consumers and businesses. Admittedly, there are also significant costssuch as job losses and company closures or closures due to import competition and relocation of production.

Nevertheless, the arguments for free trade are compelling. Over the past 30 years, US trade-dependent jobs have grown 186 percent, four times faster than overall US employment, with more than one in five jobs dependent on trade; and of the 42 million jobs involved in commerce, almost 40 percent are held by minority workers. Of the almost 290,000 US exporters, 97 percent are small and medium-sized companies that make up the difference more than 40 percent of US exports.

For those many expecting a return to pre-Trump normalcy on trade policy, the results so far have been hugely disappointing as the Biden administration has retained most of the Trump administration’s tariffs. As Stuart Malawer of George Mason University observes scornfully: “I think Biden’s trade policy is Trump without the tweets.”

That of the Biden administration is particularly disappointing cloak awoke Drape over trade policy. At the Government’s request, the ITC has launched a fact-finding inquiry as part of USTR’s efforts to initiate trade policy initiatives that take into account gender, race, ethnicity, wage levels – emphasizing the impact on the underrepresented and underserved .

The drive to integrate social goals into trade policy is not just a US phenomenon. The UK also faces this problem; but as British trade adviser Daniel Hannan claims: “Such important moral issues should be treated as separate issues and not tampered with in trade agreements.”

In any case, if the United States is to maintain, strengthen, and expand its role as champion of American competitiveness, it must pursue an agenda that emphasizes both market opening and trade law enforcement; sensible industrial policy; innovation and entrepreneurship; consumer-oriented policies; as well as qualification and personnel development. You can’t do less.

Jerry Haar is an economics professor at Florida International University, a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, and a member of the Council on Competitiveness Working Group. He is also a board member of World Trade Center Miami.

Leave a Comment