National Review/David Harsanyi: Free Trade Already Puts America First

National Review
The Corner

Economy & Business   
Free Trade Already Puts America First
By David Harsanyi   

June 15, 2018 6:30 AM

A Chinese container ship being loaded at the port of Long Beach, Calif., April 2018. (Bob Riha/Reuters)
Trump prefers protectionism to deals that lower barriers for all parties.

These days, I’m often accused of being a globalist. The word is a pejorative meant to insinuate that I am more concerned about international corporations than I am about my fellow American citizens.

Now, admittedly, I support nearly unlimited trade, no matter what other nations do. It’s mostly because I love America. “Hey, those Chinese communists are killing us with high tariffs, so maybe we should do the same thing to our own citizens” sounds like a counterproductive idea wrapped in a false choice to me. Harming hundreds of millions of consumers to try to save a handful of unproductive jobs, no matter how good it feels, doesn’t put America first.

Donald Trump, a man who campaigned on protectionist rhetoric, says he can finagle better trade agreements for the United States. Honestly, if he’s using the threat of tariffs as a cudgel to attain those deals, I don’t really care if Justin Trudeau’s feelings are hurt.

But judging from his rhetoric, it seems the president believes protectionism is preferable to deals that lower barriers for all parties. His public position on trade — one of his only enduring political positions — is that jobs and industries can be saved by using tariffs.

Take Trump’s top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, who recently laid out his basic concerns in a New York Times piece: “First, trade must be not only free but also fair and reciprocal.”

“Fair trade,” once used predominately by progressives, is a neologism without meaning. It allows a person to oppose complex agreements for a litany of reasons. The word “fair” is elastic and ambiguous, which is why it’s so popular with adolescents.

The billions of people in developing nations who work tedious menial labor jobs probably don’t find it “fair” that Americans use the savings we gain from their work to build our unprecedented wealth. Is it fair that some countries sit atop vast amounts of fossil fuels or prime farmlands while others sit on arid or barren land?

Let’s hope trade doesn’t get “fair” for us any time soon.

When Navarro writes that G-7 nations’ trade practices “contribute to America’s more than $500 billion annual global trade deficit in goods and services,” he means American citizens purchased goods they prefer from other countries. Sometimes these products are completely foreign-made, and sometimes they’re partially foreign-made, but Americans always get something in return. As economist Milton Friedman argued long ago, the real gain from international trade is not what we export but what we import.

More importantly, one reason the United States is running a trade deficit is that we are wealthy and larger and can spend more on foreign-made goods and services than others can spend on U.S.-made goods and services. For example, China, which many Americans wrongly believe is an economically comparable power, boasts of a $6,894 gross domestic product per capita, compared with our $52,194.

Navarro correctly claims that cars made in Germany and elsewhere in the European Union are subject to a 2.5 percent tariff, while the EU tariff on American cars is four times as high. “No wonder,” says Navarro, “Germany sells us three cars for every one we export to Germany.”

Well, once we consider that Germany has a population of about 83 million and ours is more than three times that number, it makes a lot more sense. But protectionists need to exaggerate the unfairness to allow us to play victims. In any event, if our trading partners are behaving as poorly as Trump claims (and that’s arguable), what would American consumers gain from paying more? Would the Germans buy more Fords?

    There isn’t even a good fake economic argument for steel tariffs.

“Second,” writes Navarro, “President Trump reserves the right to defend those industries critical to our own national security.”

There isn’t even a good fake economic argument for steel tariffs. A vast number of industries and workers rely on steel, while few work in the steel-making industry. So the administration instead wants to impose costs on aluminum and steel imports — far higher than the average tariffs imposed on the U.S. — because it’s a matter of national security.

Steel isn’t technologically sensitive, nor is it uncommon. A person needs to suspend disbelief to believe that the United States wouldn’t be able to quickly ramp up steel production if, for some incredibly strange reason, Canada and Brazil felt the need to undermine our national interests.

Many voters blame international trade agreements for trends that are largely a product of automation or increased production. It’s a story as old as the division of labor. Politicians pretend to show their empathy for the victims of creative destruction by demanding “fairness.” Instead, we end up distorting markets, killing new jobs and ignoring reality.

Comments   

On top of it all, protectionism is cronyism. It’s top-down control. It’s the state picking winners and losers. It’s a tax on the vast majority of Americans. Tariffs are all the things conservatives used to claim to be against.

©2018 Creators.com
David Harsanyi — David Harsanyi is a senior editor of the Federalist and the author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.  @davidharsanyi
More in Economy & Business   
America’s Entitlement Crisis Just Keeps Growing
Paid Parental Leave Helps Kids, Not Just Parents
It’s Time to Rethink America’s Failing Highways
Trudeau Is Annoying, Not an Adversary
Most Popular
Politics & Policy   
Rod Rosenstein’s Subpoena Threat: He’s Conflicted, and He’s Acting Like It
By Andrew C. McCarthy
The House Intelligence Committee is investigating whether the government has used the Justice Department’s awesome investigative authorities as a weapon against political adversaries. We learned yesterday that, in response to this very investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . . . threatened to ... Read More
Politics & Policy   
The Democrats’ Radical Turn
By Kyle Smith
One indicator of progressive hatred of Donald Trump that deserves more contemplation is this: The Democratic party is moving left with breathtaking velocity. Not only is it far to the left of Bill Clinton, it’s well to the left of even Barack Obama. Two and a half years before the next presidential election, ... Read More
Politics & Policy   
Scott Pruitt Should Go
By The Editors
When President Donald Trump nominated Scott Pruitt for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, he looked like he would be a bright spot for the administration: a smart and tough advocate for deregulation and the rule of law. Since his confirmation he has withdrawn such overreaching regulatory ... Read More
Politics & Policy   
Gowdy Statement on IG Report
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Representative Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight Committee which has been conducting a joint investigation, with the House Judiciary Committee, of Justice Department and FBI probes related to the 2016 election, has issued a statement in connection with the imminent release of Inspector General Michael ... Read More
Politics & Policy   
The Silencing of the Inspectors General
By Victor Davis Hanson
Department of Justice inspector general Michael Horowitz, an Obama administration appointee, is scheduled to deliver a report this week on DOJ and FBI abuses during the 2016 campaign cycle. Remember: His last investigation of FBI misconduct advised a criminal referral for fired former deputy FBI director Andrew ... Read More
Culture   
The Cult of Anthony Bourdain
By Kyle Smith
Two slices of Anthony Bourdain. Here he is in a famous passage about well-done steaks: In many kitchens, there’s a time-honored practice called “save for well-done.” When one of the cooks finds a particularly unlovely piece of steak — tough, riddled with nerve and connective tissue, off the hip end of ... Read More

    ...

    Donate
    Subscribe

    Sections
        The Corner
        Bench Memos
        The Morning Jolt
        The G-File
        News
        All Articles
        All Authors
        Podcasts
        Photos
        Videos

    Topics
        Politics & Policy
        Culture
        White House
        Film & TV
        PC Culture
        U.S.
        World
        Immigration
        Economy & Business
        Elections

    Magazine
        Latest Issue
        Archive
        Subscribe
        Customer Care
        NRPLUS
        Magazine FAQ

    About
        Frequently Asked Questions
        The Masthead
        Contact Us
        Privacy Policy
        Terms of Service
        NR Institute

    More
        Advertise
        Donate
        Search
        E-mails & Alerts

Newsletters
Morning Jolt (M-F)
NR Daily (M-Sa)
The G-File (F)
Breaking News (M-Su)

© 2018 National Review