The Economist magazine has an article worrying that the proposed US-EU trade talks – discussed in this Cato paper and at this recent event – are floundering.  They say, “[r]ight now, the pact is in trouble, beset by small-mindedness and mutual suspicion.”  All is not lost, though: “Time, then, for a big push on both sides; this pact can still be saved.”

Now, I can see why people get concerned about trade negotiations.  Many of them drag on for years, and the prospects for completing large-scale negotiations look dim these day.  But there’s something that should be kept in mind about the US-EU talks:  They haven’t even started yet!  The negotiations won’t start until July, and it’s still only April.  So everyone needs to relax a bit.

Having said that, I can see why people would express concern.  The pre-negotiation jockeying suggests there will be serious difficulties.  For example, France wants “cultural sectors,” like TV, radio and film, exempted.  On this point, the Economist notes:

European governments recently sent trade officials to Brussels to a first meeting on their offer to America. Led by the French, envoys from southern and eastern Europe called for a long list of red lines. These covered the usual stuff: agriculture, public services and “audio-visual” content (eg, bungs for French cinéastes, airtime quotas to keep Flemish hip-hop on the radio). That appals Team Obama, though not because Americans are blameless. From financial services to air passenger services, America maintains lots of barriers to trade. The real fear is that if Europe starts setting out red lines, trade sceptics in America will draw their own.

There is no doubt that this kind of economic nationalist thinking gets in the way of trade liberalization.  Instead of recognizing the benefits of opening the domestic market to imports, too many countries try to “protect” their economy from foreign competition.  The reality is that the economy benefits from this foreign competition, and governments should be fighting to see who can liberalize the most.

Unfortunately, based on what they see as rational domestic political calculations, governments do not think or act this way.  They try to use trade negotiations to open up export markets, while maintaining import protection.  Not surprisingly, this undermines the potential benefits of the negotiations, and makes it very hard to get deals done.

In order for the proposed US-EU pact to avoid stalling out, as some other trade negotiations have, some realism could be helpful.  We shouldn’t expect a trade deal to lead to complete and total free trade.  At best, it will simply make some progress towards more liberalization.  And if it can do that, that’s a good thing.

To make real progress, though, trade negotiators need to change their mindset.  Protection from foreign competition is not something to be maintained through special exceptions in trade deals; rather, protection is bad for the economy as a whole (despite any benefits to particular interest groups), making us all worse off.  If some day trade officials can recognize this basic economic truth, trade negotiations will become much easier!

As part of my “Question of the Week” series, I said that Australia probably would be the best option if the United States suffered some sort of Greek-style fiscal meltdown that led to a societal collapse.*

One reason I’m so bullish on Australia is that the nation has a privatized Social Security system called “Superannuation,” with workers setting aside 9 percent of their income in personal retirement accounts (rising to 12 percent by 2020).

Established almost 30 years ago, and made virtually universal about 20 years ago, this system is far superior to the actuarially bankrupt Social Security system in the United States.

Probably the most sobering comparison is to look at a chart of how much private wealth has been created in Superannuation accounts and then look at a chart of the debt that we face for Social Security.

To be blunt, the Aussies are kicking our butts. Their system gets stronger every day and our system generates more red ink every day.

And their system is earning praise from unexpected places. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, led by a former Clinton Administration official, is not a bastion of laissez-faire thinking. So it’s noteworthy when it publishes a study praising Superannuation.

Australia’s retirement income system is regarded by some as among the best in the world. It has achieved high individual saving rates and broad coverage at reasonably low cost to the government.

Since I wrote my dissertation on Australia’s system, I can say with confidence that the author is not exaggerating. It’s a very good role model, for reasons I’ve previously discussed.

Here’s more from the Boston College study.

The program requires employers to contribute 9 percent of earnings, rising to 12 percent by 2020, to a tax-advantaged retirement plan for each employee age 18 to 70 who earns more than a specified minimum amount. …Over 90 percent of employed Australians have savings in a Superannuation account, and the total assets in these accounts now exceed Australia’s Gross Domestic Product. …Australia has been extremely effective in achieving key goals of any retirement income system. …Its Superannuation Guarantee program has generated high and rising levels of saving by essentially the entire active workforce.

The study does include some criticisms, some of which are warranted. The system can be gamed by those who want to take advantage of the safety net retirement system maintained by the government.

Australia’s means-tested Age Pension creates incentives to reduce one’s “means” in order to collect a higher means-tested benefit. This can be done by spending down one’s savings and/or investing these savings in assets excluded from the Age Pension means test. What makes this situation especially problematic is that workers can currently access their Superannuation savings at age 55, ten years before becoming eligible for Age Pension benefits at 65. This ability creates an incentive to retire early, live on these savings until eligible for an Age Pension, and collect a higher benefit, sometimes referred to as “double dipping.”

Though I admit dealing with this issue may require a bit of paternalism. Should individuals be forced to turn their retirement accounts into an income stream (called annuitization) once they reach retirement age?

Read the rest of this post »