Topic: Trade and Immigration

Naomi Klein vs. the Climate

Liberal activist Naomi Klein has a new book out provocatively subtitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate.” (For those of you who don’t want to buy her book, an essay she wrote a couple years ago with the same title is here.)

What amuses me about her attempt to pit capitalism and the climate against each other is that I came across an excerpt from the book in the Toronto Globe and Mail in which, unwittingly, she advocated policies that, even accepting the debate on her terms, can’t be good for the climate.

Not surprisingly, she supports subsidies for renewable energy. It’s hard to have renewable energy without those. But what struck me was that she also argued for tying those subsidies to the use of local content. For example, there is a government program in Ontario that subsidizes solar energy, but only if the energy suppliers use a certain percentage of labor and materials that are made in Ontario.

There are two obvious and related problems with such a requirement. First, by requiring local inputs, you make your product more expensive (especially when local means high-cost Canada). If your goal is cheaper renewable energy, raising the price of inputs doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Second, the idea that each sub-federal government should promote local production of a particular product is absurd. Imagine if that happened worldwide: there would be thousands of producers of these products! I can’t think of a more inefficient and energy-wasting approach to manufacturing.

Just to be clear, I know many strong supporters of taking action against climate change who do not believe in this kind of protectionist approach. They recognize that local content requirements are economically harmful and shouldn’t be part of these policies. For reasons that are difficult to understand, Klein seems to have missed this pretty obvious point. (I did tweet it at her, but I’m not expecting much from that!)

Potential Path to a Green Card in Executive Action

In a little-noticed memo on November 20th, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson ordered Customs and Border Protection and Citizenship and Immigration Services to allow unlawful immigrants who are granted advance parole to depart the United States and reenter legally.  This memo is based on a decision rendered in a 2012 Board of Immigration Appeals case called Matter of Arrabally. Allowing the immigrant to legally leave and reenter on advance parole means he or she can apply for a green card from inside of the United States–if he or she qualifies. 

Advance parole can be granted to recipients of DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals) and DAPA (deferred action for parental accountability) if they travel abroad for humanitarian, employment, or educational purposes, which are broadly defined

Leaving the United States under advance parole means that the departure doesn’t legally count, so the 3/10 year bars are not triggered, and the unlawful immigrant can apply for a green card once they return to the United States through 8 USC §1255 if he or she is immediately related to a U.S. citizen.  Reentering the United States under advance parole means that the prior illegal entry and/or presence are wiped out in the eyes of the law.  Crucially, individuals who present themselves for inspection and are either admitted or paroled by an immigration officer can apply for their green card from inside of the United States and wait here while their application is being considered.

In such a case, unlawful immigrants who receive deferred action and who are the spouses of American citizens will be able to leave the United States on advance parole and reenter legally, allowing them to apply for a green card once they return.  Unlawful immigrants who are the parents of adult U.S. citizen children will be able to do the same.  Unlawful immigrants who are the parents of minor U.S. citizen children and are paroled back into the country will just have to wait until those children are 21 years of age and then they can be sponsored for a green card.

According to New York based immigration attorney Matthew Kolken, “President Obama’s policy change has the potential to provide a bridge to a green card for what could be millions of undocumented immigrants with close family ties to the United States.” 

Google’s Search “Monopoly”

Last week, while we Americans were “unbundling” the various parts of our turkeys, the European Parliament was talking about unbundling Google’s various features:

Members of the European parliament voted overwhelmingly on a measure aimed at keeping companies, such as Google, from dominating the search engine market.

The motion “calls on the [European] Commission to consider proposals with the aim of unbundling search engines from other commercial services as one potential long-term solution” to ensure fair competition.

While the vote was largely symbolic, its outcome could put EU anti-trust commissioner Margrethe Vestager under pressure to pursue complaints against Google, which critics say squeezes out its competitors using unfair advantages.

The Economist weighed in with a bit of criticism:

The European Parliament’s Googlephobia looks a mask for two concerns, one worthier than the other. The lamentable one, which American politicians pointed out this week, is a desire to protect European companies. Among the loudest voices lobbying against Google are Axel Springer and Hubert Burda Media, two German media giants. Instead of attacking successful American companies, Europe’s leaders should ask themselves why their continent has not produced a Google or a Facebook. Opening up the EU’s digital services market would do more to create one than protecting local incumbents.

The good reason for worrying about the internet giants is privacy. It is right to limit the ability of Google and Facebook to use personal data: their services should, for instance, come with default settings guarding privacy, so companies gathering personal information have to ask consumers to opt in. Europe’s politicians have shown more interest in this than American ones. But to address these concerns, they should regulate companies’ behaviour, not their market power. Some clearer thinking by European politicians would benefit the continent’s citizens.

Building on these points, I’d go even further.  It seems to me there is pretty clear demand for a privacy-focused internet company.  But I don’t see why governments need to get involved here.  Instead, companies – European ones, and others, too – just need to recognize this demand, and jump into the market with some competing products.  There are fewer barriers to entry in this market than most other markets; someone just needs to be willing to take a risk.

The Washington Post On Dodd-Frank’s Conflict Minerals Fiasco

Economic sanctions, when they have an effect at all, tend to inflict misery on a targeted region’s civilian populace and often drive it further into dependence on violent overlords. That truism will surprise few libertarians, but apparently it still comes as news to many in Washington, to judge from the reaction to this morning’s front-page Washington Post account of the humanitarian fiasco brought about by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law’s “conflict minerals” provisions. According to reporter Sudarsan Raghavan, these provisions “set off a chain of events that has propelled millions of [African] miners and their families deeper into poverty.” As they have lost access to their regular incomes, some of these miners have even enlisted with the warlord militias that were the law’s targets. 

Congress added the provisions to Dodd-Frank in a fit of moral self-congratulation over making sure Americans had the chance to be ethical and thoughtful consumers of such products as jewelry and cellphones (as well as thousands of other products, as it turned out, from auto parts to the foil in food packaging). Publicly held companies would be required to report on their supply connections to “conflict minerals” such as tin, tungsten, and gold mined in war-torn areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Lawmakers assigned enforcement of the law to the Securities and Exchange Commission – a body with scant discernible expertise in either African geopolitics or metallurgy – and barbed it with stringent penalties for disclosure violations, to which are added possible liability in class-action shareholder lawsuits.

Reactions to this morning’s Post account frequently employ words like “unintended” or “tragic” to describe the effect on miners of the law, which people in the Congo soon came to call “Loi Obama” – “Obama’s law”.  Unintended and tragic? Maybe. But not unforeseen, because the signs that the law would backfire this way have been in plain sight for years now – as in this 2011 account by Prof. Laura Seay (via) of how “electronics companies now have a strong incentive to source minerals elsewhere, leaving Congolese miners unemployed.” Or this 2011 account by David Aronson in the New York Times of the “unintended and devastating consequences” that he “saw firsthand on a trip to eastern Congo.” Or this more recent paper by law professor Marcia Narine.

But although the evidence has been there for years, the will to believe in the law was too strong – a will fueled by anti-corporate campaigners who take it on faith that when brutalities in the underdeveloped world occur within two or three degrees of separation of the activities of multinational businesses, the right answer must be to blame and shame the businesses.

You might call it an expensive lesson for Americans too, if you assume that anything has been learned. A recent Tulane calculation found that the costs in business compliance have already topped $700 million, with billions more ahead should nothing change. Just this September, the U.S. government conceded that it “does not have the ability to distinguish” which refiners and smelters around the globe are tainted by a connection to militia groups. That is to say, the government has demanded of business a degree of certainty that it cannot achieve itself.  Courtesy of UCLA corporate law professor Stephen Bainbridge, here’s a flowchart of what complying might involve for a given business. 

If the new Republican Congress wants to be taken seriously about fixing counterproductive regulation, it should make the repeal of this law an early priority.

Enduring Myths that Obscure the Case for Free Trade

Most economists agree that free trade works better than restricted trade to increase the size of the economic pie. By enlarging markets to span national borders, free trade increases the pool of potential producers, consumers, partners, and investors, which permits greater specialization and economies of scale – both essential ingredients of per capita economic growth.

But, in practice, free trade remains elusive. It is the exception, not the rule. Sure, many tariffs and other border barriers have been reduced in the United States (and elsewhere) over the years, but protectionism persists in various guises. There are “Buy American” rules limiting government procurement spending to local firms and US-made products; heavily protected services industries; seemingly endless incarnations of agriculture subsidies; import quotas on sugar; green-energy and other industrial subsidies; shipbuilding and shipping restrictions; the Export-Import bank; antidumping duties; and, regulatory protectionism masquerading as public health and safety regulations, to list some. Ironically, protectionism is baked into our so-called free trade agreements. It takes the form of rules of origin requirements, local content mandates, intellectual property and investor protections, enforceable labor and environmental standards, and special carve-outs that shield entire products and industries from international competition.

Trade agreements may be the primary vehicle through which U.S. trade barriers are reduced, but they are predicated on the fallacy that protectionism is an asset to be dispensed with only if reciprocated, in roughly equal measure, by negotiators on the other side of the table. If the free trade consensus were meaningful outside of economics circles, trade negotiations would be unnecessary. They would have no purpose. If free trade were the rule, trade policy would have a purely domestic orientation and U.S. barriers would be removed without any need for negotiation because they would be recognized for what they are: taxes on domestic consumers and businesses.

India Tosses out the WTO’s Agricultural Subsidy Disciplines

The World Trade Organization (WTO) seems on the verge of approving an agreement with India to allow the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) to move forward.  The TFA is to be applauded.  It will make a useful contribution toward helping goods move across borders more efficiently, which will tend to increase trade and promote economic growth.

The problem is not with the TFA, but rather with the high price that the global community seems ready to pay for it.  India has asked that it be allowed to exceed the level of domestic agricultural subsidies to which it agreed twenty years ago in the Uruguay Round negotiations.  For the first time in history, those talks led to limits on the ability of countries to use trade distorting agricultural supports.  Those subsidies had been rampant, often leading to surplus production that depressed crop prices in global markets.  Farmers who were being subsidized generally were happy enough with that arrangement, but it was a very different story for unprotected farmers in other countries.  Many of the world’s farmers are quite poor to start with.  Government-driven decreases in commodity prices make them even poorer.

A teachable moment is slipping away because no WTO member has been willing to stand up and explain what’s going on.  India sanctimoniously declares that it needs to promote food security through use of a robust public stockholding program, and would like the world to believe that existing WTO rules prohibit them from doing so.  This is simply not correct.  The Uruguay Round includes specific provisions detailing how public stockholding may be used for food security purposes.  A great deal of time, effort and tough negotiating went into developing those provisions.  There is no limit on government expenditures to provide food – including free or reduced-price food – to low-income people.  However, there is a clear requirement that purchases of commodities for public stocks must be made at open-market prices.  It is not allowable to purchase commodities at above-market prices in order to provide a subsidy to farmers. 

Latest Essays in Cato’s Growth Forum

Today we add the following essays to Cato’s online growth forum:

1. Enrico Moretti wants to increase the R&D tax credit.

2. Daniel Ikenson calls for more foreign investment.

3. Scott Sumner argues for better monetary policy based on nominal GDP targeting.

4. Don Peck worries about growing dysfunction in the middle class.

5. William Galston offers a potpourri of proposals for faster, more inclusive growth.

6. David Audretsch highlights the central importance of entrepreneurship.

The remaining essays will posted next week.