Nearly two and a half centuries after Adam Smith vanquished the mercantilists, mercantilism is the beacon of U.S. trade policy. In descending order of priority, U.S. trade policy is oriented toward three objectives: (1) Accelerating export growth; (2) Limiting import growth; (3) Effectuating a trade enforcement regime that maximally supports the first two objectives. The coexistence of the “exports good, imports bad” philosophy with 41 straight years of trade deficits explains why trade is so often maligned and demagogued (i.e., “We’re getting crushed in trade!”), and why trade liberalization is such a tough slog politically.
Anyone who reads the press releases from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, or the big business trade associations is familiar with the statistic that 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States. That mantra is deployed to promote the importance of exports – to suggest that removing foreign trade barriers is essential to U.S. export growth, which is essential to U.S. economic growth. But rarely does anyone in official Washington make the valid point that if 95 percent of the world’s potential customers live abroad, so do 95 percent of the world’s suppliers, 95 percent of the world’s supply chain partners, 95 percent of the world’s workers, and 95 percent of the world’s investors.
The fact that the United States accounts for only 5 percent of the world’s population means there are numerous channels through which engagement with the world increases U.S. wealth and living standards, and that U.S. barriers to imports, investment, and immigration are at least as important to surmount as are foreign barriers to U.S. exports. But official Washington considers dismantling foreign market barriers, while fortifying U.S. import barriers, to be its remit.
A brief refresher on business accounting is in order.
Profits equal revenues minus costs.
In simple arithmetic terms: P = R – C.
With reference to the simple equation above, a business can realize higher profits by increasing R or decreasing C. To be more precise, higher profits require revenues to increase faster than costs increase or for costs to decrease faster than revenues decrease.
For any given firm, revenues equal the value of its domestic sales plus the value of its export sales, and costs equal the materials, labor, and overhead used in production, as well as transportation expenses, selling expenses, taxes, and other expenses incurred in the process of delivering the good or service to the customer.
By increasing overall supply and reducing the average price of manufacturing inputs and final end‐user products, imports help reduce the cost of production for businesses and the cost of living for American households. For businesses, those lower costs generate greater profits to reinvest or distribute to shareholders or they enable lower prices to help them compete. For households, those lower costs mean lower prices and more resources to save or spend elsewhere in the economy.
The goal of trade policy should not be to maximize business revenues. The goal of trade policy should be to maximize profits (or put in economic terms: to maximize value‐added, i.e. GDP). The equation in Lesson 1, above, shows that reducing costs contributes to profit growth just like increasing revenues contributes to profit growth.
Congress demonstrates occasional, attenuated appreciation of these lessons. Every few years (8 times since 1982), Congress has passed a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which temporarily suspend duties on certain, “noncontroversial” products—usually intermediate goods, such as chemicals, electronic components, and mechanical parts—that are not manufactured domestically but are needed by U.S. producers to generate their own output. Although limited in impact by its temporary nature, by the “no domestic production” requirement, and by the caveat that the suspended duty must not reduce tariff revenues by more than $500,000, the MTB does provide some cost savings to U.S. producers. The last MTB provided an estimated $748 million of import tax relief.
As described in this new paper – released ahead of a House vote tomorrow on legislation to resuscitate the MTB process – Congress should recognize that tariffs are always costs that reduce GDP and act with greater resolve to eliminate all import tariffs permanently.