Topic: Trade and Immigration

Europe’s Solar Cartel Enforcers Struggle to Keep Prices High

In what has been aptly named “the world’s dumbest trade war,” both Europe and America have fought to limit imports of low-cost Chinese solar panels.  Much to the chagrin of anyone who likes solar power, the United States and the European Union have imposed high tariffs on Chinese panels in order to protect their own subsidized domestic industries. 

In 2013, the EU negotiated a deal with Chinese solar manufacturers that exempted them from the duties as long as they agreed to sell panels above a set minimum price.  By managing trade in this way, European authorities are essentially creating a solar cartel that divvies up market share among established companies who agree not to compete on price.

But cartel arrangements are notoriously difficult to maintain because any member of the group can ruin the scheme by reneging.  This would seem especially likely when the cartel arrangement was forced on them involuntarily by government in the first place.

Unilateral Disarmament Is Not a Thing

As the Export-Import Bank’s charter nears expiration, supporters continue to argue that ending this government agency, which subsidizes loans to major U.S. exporters (mostly Boeing), is unwise because other countries also subsidize exports.  They’re especially eager to point to China, whose own export credit agency is very active in promoting Chinese manufacturers.  They then claim that allowing the bank charter to expire would be “unilateral disarmament.”

Claiming that the United States should pursue any economic policy on the grounds that China is doing it strikes me as bordering on insanity.  Market intervention by the Chinese government has resulted in large-scale misallocation and is a serious liability for the stability of the Chinese economy.  It’s true that Chinese subsidies to domestic industries reduce opportunities for U.S. businesses, and it’s perfectly alright for the U.S. government to condemn those policies.  But should we really seek to emulate them?

Competitive metaphors about trade are generally bad, and martial ones are especially unhelpful.  The United States is simply not engaged in a metaphorical war with its trading partners.  Thinking of trade as a contest inevitably leads to bad policy by giving governments an excuse to intervene in the market for the benefit of crony constituencies.  The fact that some U.S. businesses would make more money if foreign governments pursued better policies is not a legitimate excuse to intervene in the market on their behalf.

Regardless of the reasons offered to justify it, there are real consequences to the U.S. economy when the U.S. government picks winners and losers.

Supporters of the Ex-Im Bank make plenty of other bad arguments, all of which betray a fundamental distrust of free-market capitalism.  But “China does it” may be the worst one.

Response to Bryan Caplan

Bryan Caplan of George Mason University posted some comments I sent him along with some questions about a recent blog post of his.  His questions are in quotes, my responses follow.  First, some background.

It’s important to separate immigration (permanent) from migration (temporary).  Much of what we think of as “immigration” is actually migration as many of them return home.  Dudley Baines (page 35) summarizes some estimates of return migration from America’s past.

Country/Region of Origin            Return Rates

Nordics                                     20%

English & Welsh                         40%

Portuguese                                30-40%

Austro-Hungarians & Poles          30-40%

Italians                                      40-50%           

 

Gould estimates a 60 percent return rate for Italians – similar to Mexican unauthorized immigrants from 1965-1985. 

There were three parts to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that all affected both immigration and migration.  The first part was the amnesty.  The second was employer sanctions through the I-9 form that was supposed to turn off the jobs magnet.  The third was increased border security to keep them out.  For the first two questions, I assume the rest of IRCA was passed.

Polling Free Trade

A New York Times/CBS News poll from 2013 asks, “Which is more important to you – to protect American industries and jobs by limiting imports from other countries, or to allow free trade so you can buy good products at low prices no matter what country they come from?” I like this question because it addresses protectionism as a policy rather than trade agreements.

When the options were protectionism or free trade, the result was 51% in favor of limiting imports and 41% supporting free trade.  Now that isn’t a majority of American favoring free trade, but it strikes me as an incredibly high number considering how broadly the question is worded.  It didn’t ask if we should lower tariffs; it asked if we should have any at all?  Do 41% of Americans really oppose all tariffs?

That’s worth keeping in mind as the public becomes more involved in the debate over trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  We’re going to be hearing more from the news media about Americans’ attitudes toward trade and globalization, and it’s important to remember that polls about trade vary greatly depending on how the question is worded. 

A 2013 Gallup poll focusing on general attitudes toward trade asked respondents, “Do you see foreign trade more as an opportunity for economic growth through increased U.S. exports or a threat to the economy from foreign imports?”  The problem with this question is that it assumes that trade is supposed to meet some mercantilist goal of exports exceeding imports and asks whether that goal is being met.  Unfortunately, this is how most supporters of the TPP have framed their arguments.  Still, the poll found support for trade at 57% with 35% opposed.

A new Pew Research Center poll shows that most Americans think trade agreements have been good for the United States, but when asked whether those agreements have been good for them personally, the results are more mixed:

Majorities across income categories say free trade agreements have been a positive thing for the U.S., but there are much wider income differences in opinions about the personal impact of free trade agreements.

Overall, somewhat more say their family’s finances have been helped (43%) than hurt (36%) by free trade agreements. Among those with family incomes of $100,000 or more, far more feel they have been helped (52%) than hurt (29%) financially. But among those in the lowest income group (less than $30,000), 38% say their finances have benefited from free trade agreements, while 44% say they have been hurt.

My colleague Simon Lester has noted that these results might be different if people were more informed about the regressive costs of protectionism.

Trade opponents have been quick to point out that polls about past agreements don’t actually ask if people support the TPP.  They also point to other polls that show strong public opposition when the question links trade agreements to specific hot-button issues like currency manipulation or outsourcing. 

Shawn Donnan of the Financial Times has noted how the Pew poll demonstrates a disconnect between the American public and their elected representatives.

What is remarkable is the consistency with which polls have pointed to support for trade and trade agreements in some important demographics.

Polls have shown a majority of Democratic voters support trade agreements even as most of the party’s representatives in both houses of Congress do not. The same is true for Republicans, voters under 30 and Hispanics, last week’s Pew poll found.

In fact the Pew survey found that a majority in all income groups thought trade agreements had been a “good thing” for the US economy even if they took contrasting views on what the impact had been on their own family finances.

Largely because of the political discourse in Washington, the US often looks from the outside like a parochial nation in retreat from the world, particularly when it is put up against a resurgent China. But from the ground, the US seems more comfortably interconnected with the world than it has in decades.

Just as polls show Americans are more comfortable with gay marriage than they once were they also reflect the fact that Americans are more accepting of globalisation than they have been in the past.

The TPP Is, In Fact, About Trade

One of the criticisms of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is that it’s “not about trade.”  While it is true that the TPP goes beyond trade, and addresses issues such as labor, environment and intellectual property protection (in ways that I’m not always happy about), its impact on traditional protectionist measures such as tariffs should not be ignored.  Here is Politico on this issue:

Vietnam slaps tariffs of 70 percent on U.S. cars and machinery, 35 percent on U.S. chemicals, 30 percent on U.S. biscuits and baked goods, and 25 percent on U.S. recording equipment. Japan marks up our oranges 16 percent from June through November and 32 percent from December through May; it marks up our beef exports 38.5 percent all year long. Cars made in America face a 30 percent tariff in Malaysia, which might not seem stiff compared to 50 percent on motorcycles or 35 percent on plywood, except that cars made in Japan and other Asian nations don’t face any tariff in Malaysia.

These burdensome overseas tariffs, provided to POLITICO by US Trade Representative Michael Froman, are the kind of problems President Obama hopes to address with the free trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been finalized but has recently erupted into one of the most contentious topics on Washington’s agenda. 

Overall, the U.S. imposes an average tariff of 1.4 percent on foreign goods, less than half the average for the rest of the nations Froman is negotiating with, barely a fourth the average in Vietnam and Malaysia. And it can get much worse for specific industries and products. TPP nations have tariffs ranging up to 100 percent on textiles, 87 percent on corn, and 75 percent on consumer goods, not to mention selected Japanese tariffs that amount to 189 percent on U.S. shoes and a don’t-even-think-about-it 778 percent on U.S. rice above a certain annual quota.

Even our friendly trading partner to the north has some brutal anti-American protectionism on its books. The North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 broke down a slew of barriers between the U.S. and Canada, but it exempted the poultry and dairy industries, which is why U.S. eggs face tariffs of up to 163.5 percent—and not less than 79.9 cents per dozen—in the land of ice hockey and eh. U.S. yogurt, milk, cheese, and frozen chicken all face tariffs between 237.5 percent and 249 percent in Canada.

Of course, when you talk to a U.S. government official, the focus will be on the protectionism of others, and U.S. protectionism will be ignored.  In reality, the U.S. is not all that great either.  Among other things, we have some “tariff peaks” of our own, we abuse anti-dumping duties, and there is lots of protectionism in government procurement (e.g., Buy America laws).  But the overall point is still valid: There is plenty of protectionism for trade agreements to take on.  The key, from my perspective, is how much of it the TPP actually gets rid of.  For that, we need to wait for the TPP to be completed, and see what the negotiators have accomplished.  Then, whatever has been achieved in this regard needs to be balanced against the other parts of the TPP.

Republicans Should Welcome Trade’s “Burgeoning Bromance”

The skepticism was evident in conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham’s voice when she referred to the working relationship between President Obama and Senate Majority Leader McConnell as a “burgeoning bromance.” Her sentiment is shared by a number of Republicans in Congress, who are unhappy that Senate and House leadership is working with the president to secure Trade Promotion Authority.

Perhaps it’s no longer axiomatic that trade divides Democrats and unites Republicans.  According to Politico, “about 40 to 45 of the 245 Republicans in Congress are hard ‘nos’ on [TPA]” with many asking: Why would Republicans want to give this president, who has aggrandized his authority and disregarded congressional prerogatives, any more power?  Well, they shouldn’t.  However, TPA would not give the president any power to make mischief.

Trade Promotion Authority is neither a congressional capitulation nor an executive power grab.  It is a compact between the branches, which effectively deputizes the president to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of Congress, which meet parameters and fulfill objectives spelled out by Congress, which are put to votes in both chambers of Congress. 

If the concluded trade agreement meets Congress’s parameters and fulfills its objectives, legislation to implement the agreement is considered without amendments on an expedited timetable by an up-or-down vote.  If the agreement fails to meet Congress’s parameters or fulfill its objectives, it can be taken off the so-called fast-track through a resolution of disapproval.  And, ultimately, members and senators can always vote “no” if they don’t like the deal.  

Is the TPP a Huge Deal or No Big Deal?

As more journalists and commentators discuss the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we’ve seen very conflicting descriptions of the agreement.  For some, the TPP isn’t about trade at all but about giving power to corporations and ending U.S. sovereignty, or about containing China and building U.S. influence in Asia.  When commentators do focus on the potential economic impact of the agreement, they either describe the TPP as a very big deal or as a very small one.  It all depends on your perspective.

My colleague Simon Lester has written about problems in how GDP gains from the TPP have been estimated.  I’d like to take issue with a different figure commonly cited to bolster the idea of the TPP’s hugeness—that the 12 countries involved account for almost 40% of global GDP.  This number is correct but highly misleading as a gauge of the TPP’s economic significance.

For one thing about 22.5% of global GDP comes from the United States.  So, one could claim accurately that the U.S.–Jordan Free Trade Agreement covers almost a quarter of the global economy.  Also, most of the remainder comes from Canada and Mexico, with whom the United States already has a free trade agreement.  In fact, the United States has free trade agreements with all but five countries in the TPP negotiations.

The only large economy country in the TPP that the United States doesn’t already have a free trade agreement with is Japan.  So, if you’re going to measure the “size” of the TPP, it would be best understood as a U.S.–Japan free trade agreement.  That’s a pretty big deal, actually, but it’s not two-fifths of the world.