As we’ve blogged about, both candidates are campaigning against free trade. Texas Tech economist Benjamin Powell defends free trade, examining the complaints both candidates are making. He concludes that importing goods from abroad and even trade “cheating,” such as China subsidizing its steel industry, makes Americans wealthier.
Is Prof. Powell right? Does he leave out some considerations? (more…)
Whoever gets elected president will oppose free trade. In fact, both parties are rivaling each other in condemning trade agreements such as NAFTA (which forms a common market with Canada and Mexico) and the not-yet-ratified TPP (which eases trade with Australia and Asian countries other than China).
Such a turnabout is astonishing, since Republicans have long championed free markets and Democrats have come around to agree with them. Credit, or blame, for this new stance goes to the popularity of Donald Trump, who has roused the masses against American industries moving factories and jobs overseas and American products being driven out by cheaper imports.
I can see the appeal of a self-contained national economy, but getting there would seem to involve some dangerous tradeoffs. If we erect trade barriers such as high tariffs and our trading partners retaliate, won’t that be economically disastrous? American companies will suddenly lose a major part of their markets. Prices for consumers will skyrocket. After awhile, maybe new companies would take up the slack, but, in the short term at least, wouldn’t this cause recession and even more unemployment?
This is not my field, so I am open to instruction. (more…)
As Democrats make a political point of rejecting the free trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership–to the point of defying the Democratic President–Charles Lane clears up the disinformation being spread about the treaty.
He says that, contrary to the rhetoric, it won’t lose American jobs by sending industries to lower-wage countries. Our biggest partners in this agreement, who would open their markets to us, would be Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. All of which pay higher wages than the United States! There are low-wage countries in the pact, such as Mexico and Peru, but we already have free trade agreements with them!
Also, in a column criticizing Hillary Clinton for being silent on a treaty she helped to create, Robert Kagan gives the underlying strategic reason for the Trans-Pacific Partnership: forging an alliance to counter China. (more…)
A major priority for President Obama is the passage of the Pacific trade accord, a free trade bill that would open up markets in Asia. But a proposal to fast-track the treaty–allowing a single up-or-down vote, rather than risking death by a thousand amendments–was defeated in the Senate. All but one Republican took the President’s side, but all but one Democrat voted against him. The measure fell short of the 60 votes it needed. Lots of interesting issues here, which I raise after the jump.
UPDATE: A deal seems to have been struck that will give the bill another shot.
The “Bush Doctrine” from President George W. Bush made as a priority for United States foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, to spread freedom and democracy.
The “Trump Doctrine,” as articulated by the president in his recent visit to Qatar and Saudi Arabia is to promote peace and prosperity.
The Bush Doctrine had nobler ideals, but it resulted in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which failed to implement freedom and democracy, which turned out to be not universal aspirations but the products of a culture and a religion that were alien to those nations.
The Trump Doctrine sounds more crass. He held audiences with terrorists and supporters of terrorists, monarchs and dictators, promising them major trade advantages in return for peace. But by holding out the possibility that both sides would profit from a U.S. trade deal, he made peace between India and Pakistan.
We’ve blogged about “National Conservativism” and its manifesto. Now the other kind of conservatism, the strain still committed to personal liberty and free market economics, has a manifesto and a catchy name: Freedom Conservatism.
For the background and the context of this effort, read this story in Politico by Michael Schaffer. The Nationalists’ document has 10 brief tenets, which I listed on my blog post. So does the Freedoms’ document, with the principles often paralleling and answering the rival document.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In