Trump Tariffs and Trade War With China

Imports are what make us well off; exports are merely the cost of obtaining imports.
Trump Tariffs and Trade War With China
By: George Noga – May 6, 2018

          US trade with China is patently unfair. They have higher tariffs, use cheap labor, subsidize exports and steal intellectual property. They also manipulate their currency, but that is our topic for next week. Our 2017 trade deficit with China was $340 billion. Americans’ fierce belief in fair play accounts for the popularity of Trump’s tariffs on the Middle Kingdom. Whether or not such tariffs are wise is the topic of this post.

       Economists are in lockstep that expanding markets to their maximum potential size (global) optimizes specialization, economies of scale and comparative advantage thereby generating more wealth for everyone than tariffs or trade barriers. Imports are the things we want to eat, wear or use like bananas, athletic shoes and iPhones; they make us better off. Exports are merely the price we pay to obtain imports; they do not make us better off because they are eaten, worn or consumed in other nations.

        As first conceived by Adam Smith and later espoused by Milton Friedman, the objective for any nation is to get the most possible imports with the least possible exports. Trade occurs between people, not countries; it is voluntary and non-coercive. Living Americans eat the bananas, wear the shoes and use the phones, not government. Our households, just as our nation, are better off getting more in and sending less out. Grasping that imports are desirable is the key to understanding international trade.

       Trump’s rationale for tariffs is that because America imports $525 billion from China while they import only $185 billion from us, they have more to lose in a trade war. Once it is understood that imports are what is truly desirable, living, breathing Americans would lose $525 billion in imports versus only $185 billion for the Chinese. Humans in both countries lose, but American humans lose more. Moreover, the Trump tariffs ultimately are paid by Americans as higher prices for imported goods.

        Looking beyond China, 138 countries run trade deficits with the US; in half those countries the deficit is 500%. Don’t each of those nations have the same brief against us as we have against China? What if all those countries imposed tariffs on American goods? It is normal for a country to have both trade surpluses and deficits. Similarly, your family runs trade deficits with your grocer and power company but enjoys countervailing surpluses with your employer and your investment company.

        When China sells us goods, we pay with dollars. They use $185 billion to buy things from us. They also buy goods from other countries – in many cases from the 138 countries that run trade deficits with us. Many of the dollars we send to China thus find their way back to the US. Finally, China uses some of its trade surplus to purchase US assets and to buy Treasury securities ($1.2 trillion) to finance our national debt.

       What if we imposed huge tariffs on bananas such that it would be profitable to build massive hothouses to grow them in Minnesota? It certainly would create jobs and capital investment. The price of bananas would skyrocket and American consumers would suffer immensely. Would anyone argue that banana tariffs are a wise move?

        The rise of humanity began and blossomed due to trade and it remains so today. Milton Friedman believed Americans would be better off if we unilaterally abolished all tariffs and trade barriers – even if no other country reciprocated. The United States has run 42 consecutive years with a trade deficit. Where is the harm?

        In times of war, countries blockade their enemies to prevent them from trading. Tariffs restrict a nation’s own citizens from trading; hence, countries imposing tariffs harm their own people in the same way they punish enemies in time of war.


Next: The final part of our pivot to China – currency manipulation (horrors)

Are International Trade Agreements Bad for America? Part 1

Trade between nations always is an unalloyed benefit even when workers are displaced
and trading partners manipulate their currency, subsidize exports and use cheap labor.
International Trade – Part 1
By: George Noga – September 12, 2016

        This post and the next one address international trade, including trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, which has become an issue in the 2016 election. There are so many myths about foreign trade it requires two posts to debunk them all. Upcoming posts between now and November address several hot-button presidential election issues including: (1) policing in America; (2) political correctness; (3) real versus phony issues; (4) Uber and gay marriage; and (5) economic growth. Stay tuned!

     Both parties and candidates are demonizing international trade making it their bete noire. They have leveled numerous charges and criticisms including, inter alia, the following list. This post and the following one next week will address each of them.

    • Trade agreements are not really free trade but managed trade
    • Trade deals are poorly negotiated and unfair to the US
    • American companies are harmed and workers displaced
    • Trade is competition as in the US versus foreign trading partners
    • Foreign countries subsidize goods being exported
    • Currencies are manipulated and undervalued by other countries
    • Tariffs and barriers are needed to support vital domestic industries
    • Cheap labor is being used to gain unfair advantage
    • The US incurs harmful large and perennial trade deficits

     Tariffs and trade agreements are asymmetrical in terms of perception about those harmed relative to those benefited. Take the sugar tariff; it benefits a handful of big US sugar producers (mainly in Florida) enriching some by $100 million per year. The tariff costs each American (all 320 million of us) $100 per year but is opaque because it is buried in the cost of products – a few cents here, a penny there. Because the benefits are so concentrated and the costs so diffuse, the sugar growers spend a small fortune lobbying Congress for the tariff while there is no broad based popular opposition.

       Trade agreements are the reverse of tariffs; harm to the industry affected is visible, concentrated and immediate whereas the benefits diffused among all 320 million Americans and realized over a longer period of time. Therefore, opposition to trade agreements is populist and political with the industries affected, and of course labor unions, spending a small fortune on lobbying while there is no natural constituency to support the agreements. It is ripe for media and political demagoguery.

      In all cases – tariffs, barriers and trade deals – a small but highly concentrated cohort forces its will on the American people because of politics fueled by money and abetted by media economic illiteracy. In all cases, Americans would be far, far better off without domestic tariffs or barriers and with all trade agreements – even flawed ones. Best of all would be unfettered free trade without any government involvement.

Consider an example – US imports from China – currently $500 billion per year. Let’s say, a arguendo, China cheats by undervaluing its currency and subsidizing exports; moreover, they employ low cost labor. Let’s further stipulate China’s cheating amounts to 33%, i.e. they are dumping $750 billion worth of goods for $500 billion. This is an unmitigated godsend to America which receives a $250 billion gift each year from China – equal to $780 per American or $2,450 per family. The benefits ($2,450 per family annually) far outweigh the costs of some temporarily displaced workers.

     Take the case of Carrier Corp, excoriated by Trump for moving its manufacturing to Mexico from Indiana. It made the move to stave off Asian competition and it enabled Carrier to retain higher paid US jobs in R&D, marketing and high end components.

      In a personal anecdote, I once wanted a Traeger BBQ smoker but never bought one because they were too expensive. Traeger shifted manufacturing to China and the cost plunged so much that I bought one. Sales skyrocketed and Traeger created hundreds more (and better) US jobs than before they shifted manufacturing to China. The new US jobs are in sales, wood pellets, customer service, BBQ supplies and delivery.


The next post is the final part of our analysis of international trade and tariffs.