Fix TikTok? Or Nix It? The Authoritarian RESTRICT Act

08 Saturday Apr 2023

Posted by Nuetzel in anti-Semitism, Big Government, Liberty, Technology

Tags

AI, Artificial Intelligence, Attention Span, ByteDance, CATO Institute, Caveat Emptor, ChatGPT, Community Standards, Data Privacy, Elon Musk, First Amendment, Free Speech, Hate Speech, L. Frank Baum, Munger Test, National Security, Open Source, PATRIOT Act, People’s Republic of China, Philip Hamburger, Protectionism, RESTRICT Act, Scott Lincicome, Separation of Powers, The Land of Oz, TikTok, Twitter

There’s justifiable controversy surrounding TikTok, the social media app. I find much to dislike about TikTok but also much to dislike about the solutions some have proposed, such as a complete ban on the app in the United States. Such proposals would grant the federal executive branch powers that most of us wouldn’t grant to our worst enemy (i.e., they fail the “Munger test”).

Congressional Activity

The proposed RESTRICT Act (Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology) is a bipartisan effort to eliminate the perceived threats to national security posed by technologies like TikTok. That would include a ban on the app. Proponents of a ban go further than national security concerns, arguing that TikTok represents a threat to the health and productivity of users. However, an outright ban on the app would be a drastic abridgment of free speech rights, and it would limit Americans’ access to a popular platform for creativity and entertainment. In addition, the proposed legislation would authorize intrusions into the privacy of Americans and extend new executive authority into the private sphere, such as tampering with trade and commerce in ways that could facilitate protectionist actions. In fact, so intrusive is the RESTRICT Act that it’s been called a “Patriot Act for the digital age.” From Scott Lincicome and several coauthors at CATO:

“… the proposal—at least as currently written—raises troubling and far‐reaching concerns for the First Amendment, international commerce, technology, privacy, and separation of powers.”

Bad Company

TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance, and there is understandable concern about the app’s data collection practices and the potential for the Chinese government to access user data for nefarious purposes. The Trump administration cited these concerns when it attempted to ban TikTok in 2020, and while the ban was ultimately blocked by a federal judge, the Biden administration has also expressed concerns about the app’s data security.

TikTok has also been accused of promoting harmful content, including hate speech, misinformation, and sexually explicit material. Critics argue that the app’s algorithm rewards provocative and controversial content, which can lead to the spread of harmful messages and the normalization of inappropriate behavior. Of course, those are largely value judgements, including labels like “provocative”, “inappropriate”, and many interpretations of content as “hate speech”. With narrow exceptions, such content is protected under the First Amendment.

Unlike L. Frank Baum’s Tik-Tok machine in the land of Oz, the TikTok app might not always qualify as a “faithful servant”. There are some well-founded health and performance concerns related to TikTok, however. Some experts have expressed reservations about the effects of the app on attention span. The short-form videos typical of TikTok, and endless scrolling, suggest that the app is designed to be addictive, though I’m not aware of studies that purport to prove its “addictive nature. Of course, it can easily become a time sink for users, but so can almost all social media platforms. Nevertheless, some experts contend that heavy use of TikTok may lead to a decrease in attention span and an increase in distraction, which can have negative implications for productivity, learning, and mental health.

Bad Government

The RESTRICT Act, or a ban on TikTok, would drastically violate free speech rights and limit Americans’ access to a popular platform for creativity and self-expression. TikTok has become a cultural phenomenon, with millions of users creating and sharing content on the app every day. This is particularly true of more youthful individuals, who are less likely to be persuaded by their elders’ claims that the content available on TikTok is “inappropriate”. And they’re right! At the very least, “appropriateness” depends on an individual’s age, and it is generally not an area over which government should have censorship authority, “community standards” arguments notwithstanding. Furthermore, allowing access for children is a responsibility best left in the hands of parents, not government.

Likewise, businesses should be free to operate without undue interference from government. The RESTRICT Act would violate these principles, as it would limit individual choice and potentially harm innovation within the U.S. tech industry.

A less compelling argument against banning TikTok is that it could harm U.S.-China relations and have broader economic consequences. China has already warned that a TikTok ban could prompt retaliation, and such a move could escalate tensions between the two countries. That’s all true to one degree or another, but China has already demonstrated a willingness and intention to harm U.S.-China relations. As for economic repercussions, do business with China at your own risk. According to this piece, U.S. investment in the PRC’s tech industry has fallen by almost 80% since 2018, so the private sector is already taking strong steps to reduce that risk.

Like it or not, however, many software companies are subject to at least partial Chinese jurisdiction. The means the RESTRICT Act would do far more than simply banning TikTok in the U.S. First, it would subject on-line activity to much greater scrutiny. Second, it would threaten users of a variety of information or communications products and services with severe penalties for speech deemed to be “unsafe”. According to Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger:

“Under the proposed statute, the commerce secretary could therefore take ‘any mitigation measure to address any risk’ arising from the use of the relevant communications products or services, if the secretary determines there is an ‘undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons.’

We live in an era in which dissenting speech is said to be violence. In recent years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has classified concerned parents and conservative Catholics as violent extremists. So when the TikTok bill authorizes the commerce secretary to mitigate communications risks to ‘national security’ or ‘safety,’ that means she can demand censorship.”

A Lighter Touch

The RESTRICT Act is unreasonably broad and intrusive and an outright ban of TikTok is unnecessarily extreme. There are less draconian alternatives, though all may involve some degree of intrusion. For example, TikTok could be compelled to allow users to opt out of certain types of data collection, and to allow independent audits of its data handling practices. TikTok could also be required to store user data within the U.S. or in other countries that have strong data privacy laws. While this option would represent stronger regulation of TikTok, it could also be construed as strengthening the property rights of users.

To address concerns about TikTok’s ownership by a Chinese company, its U.S. operations could be required to partner with a U.S. company. Perhaps this could satisfied by allowing a U.S. company to acquire a stake in TikTok, or by having TikTok spin off its U.S. operations into a separate company that is majority-owned by a U.S. entity.

Finally, perhaps political or regulatory pressure could persuade TikTok to switch to using open-source software, as Elon Musk has done with Twitter. Then, independent developers would have the ability to audit code and identify security vulnerabilities or suspicious data handling practices. From there, it’s a matter of caveat emptor.

Restrain the Restrictive Impulse

The TikTok debate raises important questions about the role of government in regulating technology and free speech. Rather than impulsively harsh legislation like the RESTRICT Act or an outright ban on TikTok, an enlightened approach would encourage transparency and competition in the tech industry. That, in turn, could help address concerns about data security and promote innovation. Additionally, individuals should take personal responsibility for their use of technology by being mindful of the content they consume and what they reveal about themselves on social media. That includes parental responsibility and supervision of the use of social media by children. Ultimately, the TikTok debate highlights tensions between national security, technological innovation, and individual liberty. and it’s important to find a balance that protects all three.

Note: The first draft of this post was written by ChatGPT, based on an initial prompt and sequential follow-ups. It was intended as an experiment in preparation for a future post on artificial intelligence (AI). While several vestiges of the first draft remain, what appears above bears little resemblance to what ChatGPT produced. There were many deletions, rewrites, and supplements in arriving at the final draft.

My first impression of the ChatGPT output was favorable. It delineated a few of the major issues surrounding a TikTok ban, but later I was struck by its repetition of bland generalities and its lack of information on more recent developments like the RESTRICT Act. The latter shortfall was probably due to my use of ChatGPT 3.5 rather than 4.0. On the whole, the exercise was fascinating, but I will limit my use of AI tools like ChatGPT to investigation of background on certain questions.

Tariffs, Content Quotas, and What Passes for Patriotism

10 Friday Mar 2023

Posted by Nuetzel in Free Trade, Protectionism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

budget deficits, Buy American, CCP, CHIPS Act, Comparative advantage, Consumer Sovereignty, Content Restrictions, Critical Supply Chains, Domestic Content, Donald Trump, Dumping, Export Markets, Federal Procurement, Foreign Trade, Free trade, George Will, Import Waivers, Joe Biden, Made-In-America Laws, Mercantilism, National Security, Nationalism, Patriotism, Price Competition, Price Preference, Protectionism, Tariffs, Trade Retaliation, Universal Baseline Tariffs, Uyghur Muslims

If there’s one simple lesson in economics that’s hard to get across it’s the destructive nature of protectionism. The economics aren’t hard to explain, but for many, the lessons of protectionist failure just don’t want to sink in. Putting aside matters of national security, the harms of protectionism to the domestic economy are greater than any gains that might inure to protected firms and workers. Shielding home industries and workers from foreign competition is generally not smart nor an act of patriotism, but that sentiment seems fairly common nonetheless.

The Pathology of Protectionism

Jingoistic slogans like “Buy American” are a pitch for voluntary loyalty to American brands. I’m all for voluntary action. Still, that propaganda relies on shaming those who find certain foreign products to have superior attributes or to be more economical. This feeds a psychology of economic insularity and encourages those who favors trade barriers, which is one of the earliest species of failed central planning.

The cognitive resistance to a liberal trade regime might have to do with the concentrated benefits of protectionist measures relative to the more diffuse (but high) costs it imposes on society. Some of the costs of protectionism manifest only with time, which makes the connection to policy less obvious to observers. Or again, obstructing trade and taxing “others” in the hope of helping ourselves may simply inflame nationalist passions.

Both Democrats and Republicans rally around policy measures that tilt the playing field in favor of domestic producers, often severely. And again, this near unanimity exists despite innumerable bouts with the laws of economics. I mean, how many times do you have to be beaten over the head to realize that this is a mistake? Unfortunately, politicians just don’t live in the long-term, they leap to defend powerful interests, and they seldom pay the long-term consequences of their mistakes.

Joe Biden’s “Buy American”

The Biden Administration has pushed a “Made In America” agenda since the President took office, It’s partly a sop to unions for their election support. Much of it had to do with tightening waivers granted under made-in-America laws (dating back to 1933) governing foreign content in goods procured by the federal government. The most recent change by Biden is an increase in the requirement for domestic content to 60% immediately and gradually to 75% from there. Also, “price preferences” will be granted to domestic producers of goods to strengthen supply chains identified as “critical”, including active pharmaceutical ingredients, certain minerals including rare earths and carbon fibers, semiconductors and their advanced packaging, and large capacity batteries such as those used in EVs.

There’s a strong case to be made for developing domestic supplies of certain goods based on national security considerations. That can play a legitimate role where defense goods or even some kinds of civilian infrastructure are involved, but Biden’s order applies much more broadly, including protections for industries that are already heavily subsidized by taxpayers. For example, the CHIPS Act of 2022 included $76 billion of subsidies and tax credits to the semiconductor industry.

George Will describes the cost of protectionism and Biden’s “Buy American”:

“‘Buy American,’ like protectionism generally, can protect some blue-collar jobs — but at a steep price: A Peterson Institute for International Economics study concludes that it costs taxpayers $250,000 annually for each job saved in a protected industry. And lots of white-collar jobs are created for lawyers seeking waivers from the rules. And for accountants tabulating U.S. content in this and that, when, say, an auto component might cross international borders (U.S., Canadian, Mexican) five times before it is ready for installation in a vehicle.”

Biden’s new rules will increase the cost of federal procurement. They will squeeze out contracts with foreign suppliers whose wares are sometimes the most price-competitive or best-suited to a project. This is not a prescription for spending restraint, and it comes at a time when the federal budget is under severe strain. Here’s George Will again:

“This will mean more borrowing, not fewer projects. Federal spending is not constrained by a mere shortage of revenue. So, Biden was promising to increase the deficit. And this policy, which elicited red-and-blue bonhomie in the State of the Union audience, also will give other nations an excuse to retaliate (often doing what they want to do anyway) by penalizing U.S. exporters of manufactured goods. ….. Washington lobbyists for both will prosper.”

Domestic manufacturers who find their contracting status “protected” from foreign competition will face less incentive to perform efficiently. They can relax, rather than improve or even maintain productivity levels, and they’ll feel less pressure to price competitively. Those domestic firms providing goods designated by the government as “critical” will be advantaged by the “price preferences” granted in the rules, leading to a less competitive landscape and higher prices. Thus, Biden’s “Buy American” order is likely to mean higher prices and more federal spending. This is destructive and counter to our national interests.

Donald Trump’s Tariffs

In a recent set of proposals trialed for his presidential election campaign, Donald Trump called for “Universal Baseline Tariffs” on imported goods. In a testament to how far Trump has stumbled down the path of economic ignorance, his campaign mentions “patriotic protectionism” and “mercantilism for the 21st century”. Good God! Trump might be worse than Biden!

This isn’t just about China, though there are some specific sanctions against China in the proposal. After all, these new tariffs would be “universal”. Nevertheless, the Trump campaign took great pains to cloak the tariffs in anti-China rhetoric. Now, I’m very unfavorably disposed to the CCP and to businesses who serve or rely on China and (by implication) the CCP. Certainly, in the case of China, national security may dictate the imposition of certain forms of protectionism, slippery slope though it might be. Nevertheless, that is not what universal tariffs are about.

One destructive consequence of imposing tariffs or import quotas is that foreign governments are usually quick to retaliate with tariffs and quotas of their own. Thus, export markets are shut off to American producers in an escalating trade conflict. That creates serious recession risks or might reinforce other recessionary forces. Lost production for foreign markets and job losses in the affected export industries are the most obvious examples of protectionist harm.

Then consider what happens in protected industries in the U.S. and the negative repercussions in other sectors. The prices charged for protected goods by domestic producers rise for two reasons: more output is demanded of them, and protected firms have less incentive to restrain pricing. Just what the protectionists wanted! In turn, with their new-found, government-granted market power, protected firms will compete more aggressively for workers and other inputs. That puts non-protected firms in a bind, as they’ll be forced to pay higher wages to compete with protected firms for labor. Other inputs may be more costly as well, particularly if they are imported. These distortions lead to reduced output and jobs in non-protected industries. It also means American consumers pay higher prices for both protected and unprotected goods.

Consumers not only lose on price. They also suffer a loss of consumer sovereignty to a government wishing to manipulate their choices. When choices are curtailed, consumers typically lose on other product attributes they value. It also curtails capital inflows to the U.S. from abroad, which can have further negative repercussions for U.S. productivity growth.

When imports constitute a large share of a particular market, it implies that foreign nations have a comparative advantage in producing the good in question. In other words, they sacrifice less to produce the good than we would sacrifice to produce it in the U.S. But if country X has a comparative advantage in producing good X, it means it must have a comparative disadvantage in producing certain other goods, let’s say good Y. (That is, positive tradeoffs in one direction necessarily imply negative tradeoffs in the other.) It makes more economic sense for other countries (country Y, or perhaps the U.S.) to produce good Y, rather than country X, since country Y sacrifices less to do so. And that is why countries engage in trade with each other, or allow their free citizens to do so. It is mutually beneficial. It makes economic sense!

To outlaw or penalize opportunities for mutually beneficial trade will only bring harm to both erstwhile trading partners, though it might well benefit specific interests, including some third parties. Those third parties include opportunistic politicians wishing to leverage nationalist sentiments, their cronies in protected industries, and the bureaucrats, attorneys, and bean counters who manage compliance.

When Is Trade Problematic?

Protectionists often accuse other nations of subsidizing their export industries, giving them unfair advantages or dumping their exports below cost on the U.S. market. There are cases in which this happens, but all such self-interested claims should be approached with a degree of skepticism. There are established channels for filing complaints (and see here) with government agencies and trade organizations, and specific instances often prompt penalties or formal retaliatory actions.

There are frequently claims that foreign producers and even prominent American businesses are beneficiaries of foreign slave labor. A prominent example is the enslavement of Uyghur Muslims in China, who reportedly have been used in the manufacture of goods sold by a number of big-name American companies. This should not be tolerated by these American firms, their customers, or by the U.S. government. Unfortunately, there is a notable lack of responsiveness among many of these parties.

Much less compelling are assertions of slave labor based on low foreign wage rates without actual evidence of compulsion. This is a case of severely misplaced righteousness. Foreign wage rates may be very low by American standards, but they typically provide for a standard of living in the workers’ home country that is better than average. There is no sin in providing jobs to foreign workers at a local wage premium or even a discount, depending on the job. In fact, a foreign wage that is low relative to American wages is often the basis for their comparative advantage in producing certain goods. Under these innocent circumstances, there is no rational argument for producing those goods at much higher cost in the U.S.

Very troublesome are the national security risks that are sometimes attendant to foreign trade. When dealing with a clear adversary nation, there is no easy “free trade” answer. It is not always clear or agreed, however, when international relations have become truly adversarial, and whether trade can be usefully leveraged in diplomacy.

Conclusion

As I noted earlier, protectionism has appeal from a nationalist perspective, but it is seldom a legitimate form of patriotism. It’s not patriotic to limit the choices and sovereignty of the individual, nor to favor certain firms or workers by shielding them from competition while penalizing firms requiring inputs from abroad. We want our domestic industries to be healthy and competitive. Shielding them from competition is the wrong approach.

So much of the “problem” we have with trade is the infatuation with goals tied to jobs and production. Those things are good, but protectionists focus primarily on first-order effects without considering the damaging second-order consequences. And of course, jobs and production are not the ultimate goals of economic activity. In the end, we engage in economic activity in order to consume. We are a rich nation, and we can afford to consume what we like from abroad. It satisfies wants, it brings market discipline, and it leads to foreign investment in the American economy.

Biden and Trump share the misplaced objectives of mercantilism. They are both salesmen in the end, though with strikingly different personas. Salesmen want to sell, and I’m almost tempted to say that their compulsion causes them see trade as a one-way street. Biden is selling his newest “Buy American” rules not only as patriotic, but as a national security imperative. The former is false and the latter is largely false. In fact, obstructions to trade make us weaker. They will also contribute to our fiscal imbalances, and that contributes to monetary and price instability.

Like “Buy American”, Trump’s tariffs are misguided. Apparently, Trump and other protectionists wish to tax the purchases of foreign goods by American consumers and businesses. In fact, they fail to recognize tariffs as the taxes on Americans that they are! And tariffs represent a pointed invitation to foreign trading partners to impose tariffs of their own on American goods. You really can’t maximize anything by foreclosing opportunities for gain, but that’s what protectionism does. It’s astonishing that such a distorted perspective sells so well.

Another Flop at the Impeachment Playhouse

04 Friday Oct 2019

Posted by Nuetzel in Impeachment

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Adam Schiff, Australia, China, Cronyism, Donald Trump, FISA Abuse, House Intelligence Committee, Hunter Biden, Impeachment, Inspector General, Joe Biden, Michael Horowitz, Nancy Pelosi, Obama administration, Presidential Powers, Protectionism, Quid Pro Quo, Russia Investigation, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Whistleblower

Listen, President Trump drives me crazy. His policy instincts often strike me as dangerous: trade protectionist, inflationist, and cronyist. I’m still suspicious that he might play ball with statists left and right on critical issues, when and if he perceives a political advantage in doing so. And Trump is hopelessly inarticulate and belligerent. Nevertheless, I will almost certainly vote for him in 2020 for several reasons, not least because the feasible alternatives are completely unacceptable. That view is reinforced by the behavior of the Democrat party in their effort to fabricate “high crimes and misdemeanors” on Trump’s part. That effort is not just dishonest, it is foolish, and they have a lot to lose. Their machinations are likely to blow up in their faces.

For one thing, the Democrats don’t seem to have much of a case. This time they are focused on a May 2019 phone conversation that took place between Trump and the recently-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The Democrats contend that Trump held up military aid in order to pressure Zelenskiy to investigate the Biden family’s activities in the Ukraine, a charge flatly denied by Zelenskiy. In fact, at the time of the call, the Ukrainians has no idea that military aid had been suspended, a fact first reported by The New York Times.

The Trump Administration released a transcript of the Zelenskiy call, which offers no evidence that a quid pro quo was offered by Trump. Even the text messages released this morning fail to support the claim. Joe Biden’s name came up during the call in connection with potential interference by the Ukraine in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. That’s reasonable in light of the events reported to have taken place, and it is certainly within the scope of presidential powers, as were Trump’s efforts to discuss election interference with Australia, the U.K., and other countries.

If you don’t know it already, a successful impeachment in the House of Representatives will not remove Trump from office. It will constitute a referral of charges to the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, and a conviction requires a two-thirds majority. Ain’t gonna happen.

In the meantime, there really is no formal “impeachment” underway, despite what you think you’ve heard. This is a “proceeding” that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi really had no authority to initiate, and there is no set of rules or procedures guiding the spectacle. An impeachment investigation requires a House vote, but Democrats voted to table a resolution calling for such a vote because they really don’t want one, not yet anyway. Why? Because it would force them to go on record before they’re quite sure they want to, but more importantly it would demand due process for the accused. A House vote for an impeachment investigation would give House Republicans subpoena powers, something Democrats don’t want to take a chance on.

Again, the whole effort by the Democrats will ultimately be futile, and the trial proceedings in the Senate might be very ugly for them as well. It is likely to shed light on several matters that offer unflattering context for the impeachment effort and might well lead to criminal charges against prominent Democrats and their operatives:

Did members of the Obama Administration, the DNC, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign work with the Ukrainian government to undermine the Trump’s candidacy, hatching the Russian collusion narrative in the process? Politico said so in 2017.
Did the Biden family trade on Joe Biden’s position to attract capital from large investors for a venture in the Ukraine?
What was exchanged in order for Joe Biden’s son Hunter to land a $50,000/month job with a Ukrainian gas company?
Did Joe Biden use the authority of his office to strong-arm the Ukrainians into dropping the prosecution of the company that employed his son? “Son of a B“, Joe said, I threatened to walk away and they dropped the investigation. Son of a Biden?
Members of Congress sent a letter to the Ukrainian government in May of 2018 that threatened reductions in aid without Ukrainian cooperation with the Mueller investigation into the Trump campaign.
A member of the Obama Administration is known to have approached the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in 2016 to solicit the Ukraine’s participation in a scheme to interfere with the U.S. election.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General’s report stated that the “whistleblower” or operative had a political bias. Well, might that have been a motive in the case?
Who authorized the change in requirements for whistleblower referrals from first-hand information to second-hand information, or hearsay? And when? Despite denials from left-wing fact-checkers, the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s narrative here doesn’t quite hang together. They gave the operative the wrong form? It’s been claimed that the operative provided first-hand information after all, but where is it?
Did members of Congress know about the operative’s complaint before it was formally referred to Congress? Apparently Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, knew before the complaint was drafted, and he lied about it. Was there collaboration with the operative?
What are Adam Schiff’s connections in the Ukraine? Let’s find out!

These are all troubling questions that should be investigated. We may or may not get to the bottom of it before the impeachment vote in the House, if it ever occurs. Senate Republicans will undoubtedly be interested in pursuing many of these areas of inquiry, and Joe Biden will not come out of this unscathed. There is likely considerable evidence to support claims that he used political influence to gain his son Hunter favor in the Ukraine and China.

This month, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to release his report on the origins and conduct of the Russia investigation into Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. including potential corruption of the FISA process. His report will reflect the findings of two U.S. attorneys conducting separate inquiries into various aspects of the matter. These reports are a potential disaster for Democrats. Perhaps the distraction of impeachment theatre seems desirable to them, but the longer they continue the fruitless effort to “get Trump”, which began well before he was elected, the more incompetent they look. They don’t seem to have noticed that the whole spectacle is strengthening Trump’s base of support.

Which brings me back to Trump’s belligerence, which I briefly decried above. And it’s true, I often wince, but then I often laugh out loud as well. His political opponents and the media are constantly aghast at his every unapologetic response to their attacks. I will readily admit that it’s deeply satisfying to witness him hurling the crap right back at them, right on the schnoz. In the case of the impeachment drama, his base of support and many others in the middle know the Dems richly deserve it.

The Master Negotiator: I’ll Beat Myself Till You Accept My Terms!

07 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by Nuetzel in Free Trade, Tariffs, Trump Administration

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Balance of Trade, Chinese Trade Policy, Coyote Blog, Cronyism, Donald Trump, Dumping, NAFTA, National Security, Panda Blog, Peter Navarro, Pierre Lenieux, Protectionism, Stephen Mihm, Tariffs, Trade Retaliation, Trade War, Warren Meyer, Wilbur Ross

As if you needed more evidence that governments are incompetent, look no further than trade policy: public officials the world over are almost universally ignorant regarding the effects of international trade and trade imbalances. In this sense, the Trump Administration’s new tariffs on imported steel and aluminum are in keeping with the long history of public sector foibles on trade. This phenomenon stems from an unhealthy and obsessive focus on the well-being of producers without regard to the implications of policy for consumers. Warren Meyer of Coyote Blog offers an evaluation of Chinese trade policy, which he mischievously (I believe) claims was written by a Chinese blogger on a “sister blog” called “Panda Blog“. Despite Meyer’s playfulness, the post is instructive:

“Our Chinese government continues to pursue a policy of export promotion, patting itself on the back for its trade surplus in manufactured goods with the United States. The Chinese government does so through a number of avenues, … each and every one of these government interventions subsidizes US citizens and consumers at the expense of Chinese citizens and consumers. A low yuan makes Chinese products cheap for Americans but makes imports relatively dear for Chinese. So-called ‘dumping’ represents an even clearer direct subsidy of American consumers over their Chinese counterparts. And limiting foreign exchange re-investments to low-yield government bonds has acted as a direct subsidy of American taxpayers and the American government, saddling China with extraordinarily low yields on our nearly $1 trillion in foreign exchange. Every single step China takes to promote exports is in effect a subsidy of American consumers by Chinese citizens.“

The very idea of a trade deficit is often used to intimate a threat to a nation’s economic health. Conversely, a trade surplus is used to suggest that a nation is achieving great economic success. Both contentions are nonsense. Here is more from “Panda Blog“:

“We at Panda Blog believe it is insane for our Chinese government to continue to chase the chimera of ever-growing foreign exchange and trade surpluses. These achieved nothing lasting for Japan and they will achieve nothing for China. In fact, the only thing that amazes us more than China’s subsidize-Americans strategy is that the Americans seem to complain about it so much. They complain about their trade deficits, which are nothing more than a reflection of their incredible wealth. … They complain about China buying their government bonds, which does nothing more than reduce the costs of their Congress’s insane deficit spending. They even complain about dumping, which is nothing more than a direct subsidy by China of lower prices for American consumers.

And, incredibly, the Americans complain that it is they that run a security risk with their current trade deficit with China! This claim is so crazy, we at Panda Blog have come to the conclusion that it must be the result of a misdirection campaign by CIA-controlled American media. After all, the fact that China exports more to the US than the US does to China means that by definition, more of China’s economic production is dependent on the well-being of the American economy than vice-versa.“

By the way, those “quotes” from “Panda Blog” appeared on Coyote Blog 12 years ago!

All nations tend to play these trade games to one extent or another. But protectionist actions always harm a nation’s consumers more than they help producers, a proposition that is easy to demonstrate using a simple supply and demand diagram. While the class of consumers is broader than the class of producers, ultimately “producer” and “consumer” are different roles played by the same individuals. So protectionism is always harmful to a nation, on balance. Furthermore, retaliation against another nation for its dim-witted trade barriers also harms the retaliating nation’s consumers more than it helps its producers, and that’s true regardless of whether retaliation begets reciprocal actions.

Of course, producers are generally in a better position than consumers to grease the political skids in their favor. In a separate post, Meyer notes that protectionist trade policies are rooted in cronyism. The costs to society are very real, but they tend to be diffuse and therefore less obvious to most consumers.

“A lot of the media seems to believe the biggest reason they are bad is that they will incite retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which they almost certainly will. But even if no one retaliated, even if the tariffs were purely unilateral, they would still be bad. In case after case, they are justified as increasing the welfare of a certain number of workers in targeted industries, but they hurt the welfare of perhaps 100x more people who consume or work for companies that consume the targeted products. Prices will rise for everyone and choices will be narrowed.“

A couple of points deserve emphasis in relation to my last post on Trump’s tariff action:

In terms of jobs, the tariffs announced by President Trump present a very poor risk-reward tradeoff (WSJ article is gated):

“The policy point is that Mr. Trump’s tariffs are trying to revive a world of steel production that no longer exists. He is taxing steel-consuming industries that employ 6.5 million and have the potential to grow more jobs to help a declining industry that employs only 140,000.“

Stephen Mihm discusses ways in which the U.S. steel industry squandered its superiority in the post-World War II era. Much of Mihm’s article is devoted to the industry’s failure to upgrade to new production technologies. Interestingly, however, it fails to mention the damaging role played by unions in the process. “Dumping” had very little to do with it.
Finally, Pierre Lemieux takes a closer look at the national security argument for trade barriers. He concludes that it is fallacious. Of course, it is an excuse for cronyism. Protectionism harms the competitiveness of the protected industries, which actually undermines national security. And protectionism is usually unnecessary on close examination. In the case of steel, for example, national defense and homeland security use only about 3% of American steel production. Beyond that simple fact, the argument is dangerously open-ended. Almost anything can be represented as critical to national security: steel, food, clothing, and many other categories. Even human resources.

Today, Trump announced that Canada and Mexico will be exempt from the new tariffs while a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is underway. That’s better, but this carve-out exempts only 25% of U.S. steel imports. Perhaps Australia will be granted an exemption as well, but additional carve-outs will prompt further increases in tariffs on non-exempt imports. Trump also said that U.S. flexibility in applying the new tariffs to allies will depend on their commitments for military spending!

Thus, rather than maintaining the pretense that trade relationships are about economics, the administration has conceded that the tariffs and the exemption process will be transparently political, never a prescription for efficient resource allocation. Moreover, U.S. trading partners are likely to be reluctant to test the politics of modifying their own trade manipulations at home. Indeed, the politics may dictate retaliation, rather than concessions. In any case, the governments of our trading partners are as clueless on trade as Trump, his Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and his economic advisor Peter Navarro, or they would never intervene in private trade decisions to begin with.

Trump Bumbles On Trade With Tariffs

02 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by Nuetzel in Free Trade, Protectionism, Tariffs

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Carve-Outs, central planning, Fair Trade, Import Quotas, monopoly power, Protectionism, Tariffs, Trade Barriers, Trade War, Trading Partners, Trump Tariffs

You can get away with lousy policy by calling it a “negotiating tactic” for only so long. But that dubious ploy is one of the rationales offered last week by the Trump Administration for imposing a 25% tariff on imported steel and a 10% tariff on imported aluminum. Sure, the tariffs are like gifts rendered onto American steel and aluminum producers, their shareholders, and their unionized workers. The tariffs allow them to compete more effectively, without any effort, with foreign steel and aluminum in the domestic market, and the tariffs may also give them leeway to raise prices. The tariffs are also forgiving of degraded performance by domestic producers, since reduced competition relieves pressure for efficiency, a primary social cost of monopoly power.

So who pays for these gifts to the domestic steel and aluminum industries? A tariff, of course, is a tax, and a significant portion of it will be passed along into higher prices of both imported and domestically-produced steel and aluminum. Therefore, the burden of that tax will be borne to a large extent by domestics users, including every domestic industry that uses steel or aluminum as an input, and by consumers who purchase those products. That erodes the job security of many domestic workers outside of the steel and aluminum industries. In fact, the tariffs are unlikely to create more jobs even in the steel and aluminum industries given the negative impact of higher prices on the quantities of those metals demanded.

The desperate story line in support of tariffs also includes the assertion that the U.S. steel and aluminum industries are in such dire straits that they are in danger of vanishing. Statistics on U.S. production hardly suggest that is the case, however. Steel output in the U.S. has been reasonably steady since recovering from the last recession, though it has not achieved its pre-recession level. While aluminum output has been declining, it is hardly in a free fall. The stock prices of major steel and aluminum producers, which are forward-looking, have not demonstrated a particular need for government aid (as if that could ever justify a too-big or too-important-to-fail mentality).

Defenders of the tariffs claim that one effect will include additional direct investment in the U.S. by foreign producers of steel and aluminum, because they can avoid the tariffs by setting up production within our borders. Perhaps a few will, but capital is mobile in other sectors as well. Producers in other industries requiring intensive use of steel or aluminum inputs will now have an incentive to shift production overseas, where the tariffs won’t apply. Attempting to prevent such shifts via import tariffs on final products would quickly become a nightmare of central planning.

Apologists for the tariffs go even further, noting that our new regulatory and tax environment will bring foreign producers to the U.S., essentially making the tariffs irrelevant. If that’s the case, why bother imposing the tariffs at all? And why penalize consumers and industries requiring intensive use of steel or aluminum?

The argument that tariffs provide a stronger position from which to negotiate with foreign “trading partners” (or rather, their governments) is tenuous at best. More likely, the tariffs will prompt retaliation by foreign governments against a range of American products. The very notion that “trade wars are good”, tweeted by President Trump on Friday morning, is as nonsensical as a suggestion that voluntary exchange is destructive. Already, the EU has announced plans to retaliate by imposing tariffs on bourbon and motorcycles produced in the U.S.

Negotiations are unlikely to be successful. Perhaps some foreign governments who subsidize their steel and aluminum producers could be persuaded to enter talks. Our own domestic producers are penalized by various tariffs and quotas in place abroad, and those might be used by foreign interests as a lever in negotiations. However, the most fundamental foreign trade advantages, when they exist, have to do with low wages, less regulation, more efficient production facilities, and sometimes a more favorable tax environment. Wage levels reflect labor productivity, but those wage levels are valued more highly in their home countries than in the U.S, and penalizing these countries with trade sanctions merely penalizes their workers. Not all dimensions of a cost advantage can be negotiated, and in any case, healthy competition in any industry is always in the interests of a nation’s consumers.

National security is another standard argument in favor of protectionist measures. We’re told, for example, that we cannot allow China to produce all of the steel, but China provides only a small fraction of U.S. steel imports. Canada, Brazil and Mexico provide far more. In fact, China was in 11th place on that list in 2017. So our sources of steel are fairly well diversified. A domestic shortage of steel or aluminum caused by a breakdown in relations with one or more steel-exporting countries would lead to higher prices, but it would bring forth greater supplies from other countries and even from high-cost domestic sources. That is not a national emergency.

It’s possible that the Trump Administration will create “carve-outs”, exempting goods from certain countries from the tariffs. Presumably, those would be based on an assessment of each country’s trade policies and whether they are consistent with “fair” trade, in the judgement of U.S. trade authorities. However, all nations play the protectionist game in one form or another, including the U.S. Any carve outs would be better than none at all, but the remaining tariffs imposed by the administration will be a net burden to the U.S. economy.

Up till now, I have been pleasantly surprised by the Trump Administration’s efforts to de-tax and deregulate the U.S. economy. However, the threat that Donald Trump would adopt protectionist trade policies was one of my major trepidations about his candidacy. And here it is, as he promised. The dilemma often expressed by protectionists is that foreign producers can put elements of the domestic economy out of business by selling below cost. That drain on a country’s resources cannot span all industries — the U.S. has a comparative advantage in many areas. Such an effort cannot last forever or else these nations would cannibalize their own industrial base. Foreign governments quite simply cannot afford it economically and politically. On our end, the best advice is to accept the gift of low-cost goods. With access to ultra-cheap goods, whether steel, sorghum, or some finished product, American consumers and producers who use those imports gain unambiguously, and the purchasing power released can be spent on other goods and services.

A Trump Tax Reform Tally

03 Wednesday May 2017

Posted by Nuetzel in Big Government, Taxes, Trump Administration

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Alternative Minimum Tax, Border Adjustment Tax, C-Corporation, Capex Expensing, Capital Tax, Carry Forward Rules, Child Care Tax Credit, Don Boudreaux, Double Taxation, Goldman Sachs, Immigration, Interest Deductibility, Kevin D. Williamson, Mortgage Interest Deduction, Pass-Through Income, Protectionism, Qualified Dividends, Revenue Neutrality, S-Corporation, Shikha Dalmia, Standard Deduction, Tax Burden, Tax Incentives, tax inversion, Tax Reform, Tax Subsidies, Territorial Taxes, Thomas Sowell, Trump Tax Plan

The Trump tax plan has some very good elements and several that I dislike strongly. For reference, this link includes the contents of an “interpretation” of the proposal from Goldman Sachs, based on the one-page summary presented by the Administration last week as well as insights that the investment bank might have gleaned from its connections within the administration. At the link, click on the chart for an excellent summary of the plan relative to current law and other proposals.

At the outset, I should state that most members of the media do not understand economics, tax burdens, or the dynamic effects of taxes on economic activity. First, they seem to forget that in the first instance, taxpayers do not serve at the pleasure of the government. It is their money! Second, Don Boudreaux’s recent note on the media’s “taxing” ignorance is instructive:

“In recent days I have … heard and read several media reports on Trump’s tax plan…. Nearly all of these reports are juvenile: changes in tax rates are evaluated by the media according to changes in the legal tax liabilities of various groups of people. For example, Trump’s proposal to cut the top federal personal income-tax rate from 39.6% to 35% is assessed only by its effect on high-income earners. Specifically, of course, it’s portrayed as a ‘gift’ to high-income earners.

… taxation is not simply a slicing up of an economic pie the size of which is independent of the details of the system of taxation. The core economic case for tax cuts is that they reduce the obstacles to creative and productive activities.“

Boudreaux ridicules those who reject this “supply-side” rationale, despite its fundamental and well-established nature. Thomas Sowell makes the distinction between tax rates and tax revenues, and provides some history on tax rate reductions and particularly “tax cuts for the rich“:

“… higher-income taxpayers paid more — repeat, MORE tax revenues into the federal treasury under the lower tax rates than they had under the previous higher tax rates. … That happened not only during the Reagan administration, but also during the Coolidge administration and the Kennedy administration before Reagan, and under the G.W. Bush administration after Reagan. All these administrations cut tax rates and received higher tax revenues than before.

More than that, ‘the rich’ not only paid higher total tax revenues after the so-called ‘tax cuts for the rich,’ they also paid a higher percentage of all tax revenues afterwards. Data on this can be found in a number of places …“

In some cases, a proportion of the increased revenue may have been due to short-term incentives for asset sales in the wake of tax rate reductions. In general, however, Sowell’s point stands.

Kevin Williamson offers thoughts that could be construed as exactly the sort of thing about which Boudreaux is critical:

“It is nearly impossible to cut federal income taxes in a way that primarily benefits low-income Americans, because high-income Americans pay most of the federal income taxes. … The 2.4 percent of households with incomes in excess of $250,000 a year pay about half of all federal income taxes; the bottom half pays about 3 percent.”

The first sentence of that quote highlights the obvious storyline pounced upon by simple-minded journalists, and it also emphasizes the failing political appeal of tax cuts when a decreasing share of the population actually pays taxes. After all, there is some participatory value in spreading the tax burden in a democracy. I believe Williamson is well aware of the second-order, dynamic consequences of tax cuts that spread benefits more broadly, but he is also troubled by the fact that significant spending cuts are not on the immediate agenda: the real resource cost of government will continue unabated. We cannot count on that from Trump, and that should not be a big surprise. Greater accumulation of debt is a certainty without meaningful future reductions in the growth rate of spending.

Here are my thoughts on the specific elements contained in the proposal, as non-specific as they might be:

What I like about the proposal:

Lower tax rate on corporate income (less double-taxation): The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world, and the corporate income tax represents double-taxation of income: it is taxed at the corporate level and again at the individual level, perhaps not all at once, but when it is actually received by owners.
Adoption of a territorial tax system on corporate income: The U.S. has a punishing system of taxing corporate income wherever it is earned, unlike most of our trading parters. It’s high time we shifted to taxing only the corporate income that is earned in the U.S., which should discourage the practice of tax inversion, whereby firms transfer their legal domicile overseas.
No Border Adjustment Tax (BAT): What a relief! This was essentially the application of taxes on imports but tax-free exports. Whatever populist/nationalist appeal this might have had would have quickly evaporated with higher import prices and the crushing blow to import-dependent businesses. Let’s hope it doesn’t come back in congressional negotiations.
Lower individual tax rates: I like it.
Fewer tax brackets: Simplification, and somewhat lower compliance costs.
Fewer deductions from personal income, a broader tax base, and lower compliance costs. Scrapping deductions for state and local taxes in exchange for lower rates will end federal tax subsidies from low-tax to high-tax states.
Elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax: This tax can be rather punitive and it is a nasty compliance cost-causer.

What I dislike about the proposal:

The corporate tax rate should be zero (with no double taxation).
Taxation of cash held abroad, an effort to encourage repatriation of the cash for reinvestment in the U.S. Taxes on capital of any kind are an act of repeated taxation, as the income used to accumulate capital is taxed to begin with. And such taxes are destructive of capital, which represents a fundamental engine for productivity and economic growth.
Retains the mortgage interest and charitable deductions: Both are based on special interest politics. The former leads to an overallocation of resources to owner-occupied housing. Certainly the latter has redeeming virtues, but it subsidizes activities conferring unique benefits to large donors.
Increase in the standard deduction: This means fewer “interested” taxpayers. See the discussion of the Kevin Williamson article above.
We should have just one personal income tax bracket, not three: A flat tax would be simpler and would reduce distortions to productive incentives.
Tax relief for child-care costs: More special interest politics. Subsidizing market income relative to home activity, hired child care relative to parental care, and fertility is not an appropriate role for government. To the extent that public aid payments are made, they should not be contingent on how the money is spent.
Many details are missing: Almost anything could happen with this tax “plan” when the real negotiations begin, but that’s politics, I suppose.

Mixed Feelings:

Descriptions of the changes to treatment of pass-through” income seem confused. There is only one kind of tax applied to the income of pass-through entities like S-corporations, and it is the owner’s individual tax rate. Income from C-corporations, on the other hand, is taxed twice: once at a 15% corporate tax rate under the Trump plan, and a second time when it is paid to investors at an individual tax rate, which now range from 15% to almost 24% for “qualified dividends” (most dividend payments), but are likely to range up to 35% for “ordinary” dividends under the plan. So effectively, double-taxed C-corporate income would be taxed at total rates ranging from 30% to 50% after tallying both the C-corp tax and the individual tax. (This is a simplification: C-corp income paid as dividends would be taxed to the corporation and then immediately to the shareholder at their individual rate, while retained corporate income would be taxed later).

Presumably, the Trump tax plan is to reduce the rate on “pass-through” income to just 15% at the individual level, regardless of other income. (It is not clear how that would effect brackets or the rate of taxation on other components of individual income.) Is that good? Yes, to the extent that lower tax rates allow individuals to keep more of their hard-earned income, and to the extent that such a change would help small businesses. S-corps have always had an advantage in avoiding double taxation, however, and this would not end the differential taxation of S and C income, which is distortionary. It might incent business owners to shift income away from salary payments to profit, however, which would increase the negative impact on tax revenue.

Interest deductibility and expensing of capital expenditures are in question. Interest deductibility puts debt funding on an equal footing with equity funding only if the double tax on C-corp income is fully repealed. Immediate expensing of “capex” would certainly provide an investment incentive (as long as “excess” expenses can be carried forward), and for C-corporations, it would certainly bring us closer to elimination of the double-tax on income (the accounting matching principle be damned!).
There is no commitment to shrink government, but that’s partly (only partly) a function of having abandoned revenue neutrality. It’s also something that has been promised for the next budget year.
The tax reform proposal represents a departure from insistence on revenue neutrality: On the whole, I find this appealing, not because I like deficits better than taxes, but because there may be margins along which tax policy can be improved if unconstrained by neutrality, assuming that the incremental deficits are less damaging to the economy than the gains. The political landscape may dictate that desirable changes in tax policy can be made more easily in this way.

Shikha Dalmia wonders whether a real antidote for “Trumpism” might be embedded within the tax reform proposal. If the reforms are successful in stimulating non-inflationary economic growth, a “big if” on the first count, the popular preoccupations inspired by Trump with immigration policy, the “wall” and protectionism might just fade away. But don’t count on it. On the whole, I think the tax reform proposal has promise, though some of the good parts could vanish before a bill hits Trump’s desk, and some of the bad parts could get worse!

Now, What About Trump?

25 Wednesday Jan 2017

Posted by Nuetzel in Trump Administration

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ajit Pai, Barack Obama, Bill Weld, Donald Trump, Drug War, eminent domain, Entitlement Reform, Executive Authority, FCC, FDA, Fourth Amendment, Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton, Industrial Policy, Jim O'Neil, Keystone Pipeline, Legal Immigration, Limited government, Paris Climate Accord, Protectionism, Scott Alexander, Slate Star Codex, Standing Rock Sioux, State's Rights, Trade Partnerships, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trump's Great Wall, USA Freedom Act, Wilbur Ross

This guy I voted for… Hoo boy! I’m tellin’ ya’, this guy’s a real beaut! But now, it’s time for me to make an accounting of the good and the bad I see in a Donald Trump presidency. I’ll cover a number of policy areas and how well I think, at this point, the Trump Administration will match my preferences, which are generally libertarian. In posting this list, I’m reminded of a wonderful quote of the late guitarist Jerry Garcia on his ideas for a new project: “I’m shopping around for something to do that no one will like.” I certainly don’t expect many to agree with the entirety of my “scorecard”, but here it is. But before getting to it, a few preliminaries:

First, I’ve had mixed feelings about Trump since he first announced that he’d seek the republican nomination. A basic concern was the difficulty of knowing his real philosophy about the role of government and fundamental constitutional rights. Trump has a history of contradictory positions on big issues like taxes, health care, and gun rights. It was a gamble to count on him to follow any particular idealogical course, and some of it remains unclear even now. My misgivings about Trump’s inclinations as a whirligig were discussed on Sacred Cow Chips in “Trump Flaunts Shape-Shifting Powers” in 2015. Uncertainty still colors my views, though his cabinet picks and other alliances have served to clarify the direction of policy. My discussion below reflects this uncertainty. Also, Trump shows every intention of moving fast on a number of fronts, so I hope the relevance of this post isn’t too perishable.

Second, it’s worth noting that Trump’s policy statements and predilection to “keep-’em-guessing” are probably a by-product of his instincts as a negotiator. His bellicosity may be something of a ploy to negotiate more favorable compromises in international affairs, trade and domestic issues. Still, I can’t know that. Should I evaluate all those statements at face value as policy positions? I have to make some allowance for the reasonability of a bargaining position, but I’ll try to be consistent in my approach.

Third, revelations during the campaign of Trump’s past remarks about women, and some in-campaign remarks like his attack on Megyn Kelly, were highly offensive. I’ve heard plenty of “locker-room talk” over my years, but some of Trump’s statements were made well outside the locker room and well beyond the age at which “youthful indiscretion” could be taken as a mitigating factor. Trump has plenty of female defenders, however, and he has a record of placing women in key roles within the Trump organization and for paying them well. While I do not condone the remarks, and I doubt that complete reform is possible, he cannot change his history and he is now the president. Evaluating his policy positions is now an entirely separate matter. I only hope the exposure has taught him to be more respectful.

Finally, I do not buy the narrative that Trump is a racist. This “Crying Wolf” essay on Scott Alexander’s Slate Star Codex blog demonstrates that Trump’s rhetoric and behavior during his campaign was not racist when viewed in the broader context of his record of denigrating anyone who opposes him. He seems to be an equal opportunity offender! In fact, Trump made strong attempts to appeal to minority voters and succeeded to some extent. His positions on border security and immigration were boisterous, but they were not truly about race or ethnicity. Instead, they were rooted in concerns about illegal immigration and public safety. Efforts by the left to characterize those points as de facto evidence of racism are simply not credible. Nor are claims that he practiced racial discrimination at his apartment buildings early in his career. Today, I would call those cases garden-variety disparate impact actions, as when a business is challenged on the use of screening criteria that might be correlated with race, such as credit rating. A legitimate business purpose is generally a valid defense, though Trump did agree to settle out of court.

So what about Trump from a policy perspective? Here is what I expect of his administration thus far:

I’m Pretty Sure of the Following, Which I Rate As Bad

Trump is a protectionist. He is extremely ignorant of trade principles and favors import duties to punish those who wish to purchase goods from abroad. This would raise both domestic and import prices and directly harm employment in import-dependent industries. It would also discourage innovation by domestic producers, who would face less competition. I cover these protectionist tendencies here as an unqualified negative, but I have a more mixed view on his opposition to certain government-negotiated trade agreements (e.g., the Trans-Pacific Partnership ), which are covered below.

Trump is likely to be a drug warrior. He could do much to restore order in inner cities by ending the drug war, but he will not. He will thereby encourage activity in the black market for drugs, which produces both violence and more dangerous varieties of drugs. He might well interfere with the rights of states to determine their own policies toward relatively benign substances like marijuana, including medical marijuana, by choosing to enforce destructive federal drug laws. The possible appointment of marijuana legalization advocate Jim O’Neil to head the FDA looks decreasingly likely. That might be a game changer, but I doubt it will happen.

Big public infrastructure outlays. This is distinct from private infrastructure, to be discussed below. The latter is motivated by private willingness-to-pay. Rushing into a large public construction program with questionable economic justification will bring waste, and it will probably be sold as an economic stimulus package, which is unnecessary and dangerous at a time when the economy is finally operating near capacity. The decrepitude of American infrastructure is greatly exaggerated by those with a private interest in such projects, and the media eats it up. The breathless promotion of massive but noneconomic projects like high-speed rail is also greeted with enthusiasm by the media. And politicians love to boast to constituents of their efforts to secure federal funds for big local projects. We also know that Trump wants to build a massive border wall, but I’m convinced that border security could be achieved at lower cost by leveraging surveillance technology and other, less costly barriers.

Deficits: Increased defense outlays, a big infrastructure package, a “great” wall, tax credits and lower tax rates will almost certainly add up to ballooning federal deficits in the years ahead. That fiscal combination will be unsustainable if accompanied by higher interest rates and could very well have inflationary consequences.

Trump favors public and private eminent domain and believes it should be treated as a hallowed institution. He truly thinks that a “higher-valued use” is a superior claim to existing ownership of property. This is perverse. I have trouble accepting eminent domain action even for a public purpose, let alone a private purpose; it should only be motivated by the most compelling public interest, as a last resort, and with handsome compensation to the existing property owner. We can only hope that Trump’s public and private infrastructure programs do not lead to many takings of this kind.

Industrial policy. This is the essence of government central planning, picking winners and losers by granting tax and loan subsidies, lenient reviews, and other advantages. The most obvious example of Trump’s amenability to industrial policy is his penchant for trade protectionism, but I fear it will go much deeper. For some reason, Trump believes that manufacturing activity creates private and public benefits far beyond its market value. Moreover, manufacturers require far fewer workers now than they did in his youth, so the sector is not the job engine it once was. His appointee for Commerce Secretary is Wilbur Ross, an investor with a history of trading on prospects for government assistance. This article provides disturbing background on Ross, along with this quote: “We ought, as a country, to decide which industries are we going to really promote — the so-called industries of the future.” Trump’s plan to meet regularly with leaders of giant corporations is a sure sign that corporatism will be alive and well for at least the next four years… as long as they tow The Donald’s line.

Restricting Legal Immigration. I’m all for securing the border, but legal immigration is a major driver of economic growth. Many industries rely on a flow of skilled and unskilled workers from abroad, a need that will be more intense given Trump’s plan to tax outsourcing. Moreover, the country will face a low ratio of workers to retirees over the next few decades; short of massive entitlement reform, immigration is perhaps the only real chance of meeting public obligations to retirees.

Endangered Privacy Rights: As a “law and order” guy, Donald Trump might not be a reliable defender of the privacy protections enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. He has expressed a willingness to repeal the USA Freedom Act, which restricts the bulk collection of metadata and provides other privacy protections. Trump also has expressed an interest in forcing technology companies to enable “back doors” into the devices and programs they sell to the public. I’m concerned that we’ll see the creation of security databases with an excessively broad scope. As a likely drug warrior, Trump will support the sort of privacy violations in law enforcement that have become all too common.

I’m Pretty Sure of the Following, Which I Rate As Good

He’s not Hillary Clinton, and he is not a statist in the mold of Clinton and Barack Obama, though he does embody some statist tendencies as described above. I thought I would vote for Gary Johnson, but he made crucial mistakes, such as choosing Bill Weld as his running mate and fumbling at attempts to explain libertarian philosophy. At some point, my distaste for Clinton’s criminality and her advocacy of big government in so many aspects of life convinced me she had to be defeated, and that Trump was the only real possibility. But whether he can actually reduce the resources that the federal government absorbs is hard to say, as he has his own spending priorities.

Trump favors deregulation generally, as it places an enormous burden on society’s ability to improve well being. This covers aspects of the Affordable Care Act and reducing the role of the federal government in education. He opposes the costly Paris Climate Accord and other intrusive federal environmental measures, such as wetlands regulation.

Obamacare repeal and replacement with market-oriented delivery of health care, insurance with broad choices, and equalized tax treatment across the employer and individual market segments via refundable tax credits. There is a chance that Trump’s preferred alternative will assign excessive responsibility to the federal government rather than markets, but I’m optimistic on this point.

Entitlement reform is a possibility. Social Security and Medicare are insolvent. Ideas about how future retirees might take advantage of market opportunities should be explored. This includes private retirement accounts with choices of investment direction and greater emphasis on alternatives like Medicare Advantage.

Tax reform of some kind is on Trump’s agenda. This is likely to involve lower corporate and individual tax rates and some tax simplification. It is likely to stimulate economic growth from both the demand and the supply sides. In the short-run, traditional demand-side macroeconomic analysis would suggest that upward price pressures could arise. However, by encouraging saving and investment, the economy’s production capacity would increase, mitigating price pressure in the longer run.

Trump favors border security. No mystery here. My enthusiasm for this is not based on a physical wall at the border. That might come and it might be very costly. I favor a liberalized but controlled flow of immigration and vetting of all immigrants. The recent order of a temporary hold on refugees from a short list of countries will be of concern if it is not short-lived, and it remains to be seen what “extreme vetting” will entail. Nevertheless, I support enhanced integrity of our borders and our right as a nation to be cautious about who enters.

Education reform and school choice. Increased spending on public education, especially at the federal level, has made no contribution to educational productivity, and the country is burdened with too many failing schools.

Encouraging private infrastructure. This relies on private incentives to build and finance infrastructure based on users’ willingness to pay, thereby avoiding stress on public funding capacity.

Deregulating energy: This includes encouraging zero-carbon nuclear power, deregulation of fossil fuels, and lower energy costs.

Deregulating financial institutions. Repeal of the burdensome Dodd-Frank Act, which has imposed costs on both banks and consumers with little promise of a benefit in terms of financial stability.

Unabashed support for Israel. I strongly favor repairing our damaged ties with Israel and the proposed move of our embassy to West Jerusalem, which has been a part of Israel proper since its founding. Israel is the only real democracy in the middle east and a strong ally in an extremely dangerous part of the globe.

Trump supports Second Amendment rights. This is fundamental. Private gun ownership is the single-best line of self-defense, especially for those with the misfortune to live in areas rife with black market drug activity.

States’ rights and federalism. On a range of issues, Trump seems amenable to transferring more responsibility to states, rather than asserting federal supremacy on issues that are unsettled from region-to-region.

Ending federal funding for abortion. Tax dollars should not be used for a purpose that is morally abhorrent to a large segment of the population. This is not the same as the “right” to abort a child, as settled by Roe vs. Wade.

Putting the screws to the UN. This organization is not aligned with U.S. interests, yet the U.S. foots a large part of the bill for its activities. Sharp reductions in funding would be a powerful message.

Reduced federal funding for the arts. I’ve never been comfortable with allowing the federal government to disburse funds in support of the arts. Lower levels of government are less objectionable, where there is greater accountability to local voters. Dependence on federal purse strings creates a powerful line of influence that usurps authority and may conflict with the desires of local taxpayers. Individuals pay for art voluntarily if they find it of value, and people give privately to support the arts for the same reason. Federal taxpayers certainly have other valued uses for the funds. Art is not a “public good” in a strict sense, and its external benefits, to the extent they exist, do not justify a federal role.

Reversing the FCC’s net neutrality rules. Trump has appointed Ajit Pai as the new chairman of the FCC. Pai is no fan of net neutrality, a policy that rewards heavy users of network capacity and is likely to discourage the growth of network infrastructure.

I’m Not Sure How To Rate the Following

Foreign policy reset. I welcome several likely foreign policy initiatives from the Trump Administration, such as deemphasizing our role in the UN, restoring our relationship with Israel, and taking a harder line on nuclear development by Iran. I also favor greater scrutiny of outlays for foreign aid, much of which is subject to graft by recipient governments. However, I would not welcome a continuation of foreign policy designed around U.S. strategic interests that are, in fact, private investments.

Defense build-up. Our armed forces have suffered a decline in their ability to defend the country during the Obama years. I favor some restoration of the defense budget, but I am concerned that Trump will go on a defense binge. I’m also concerned about how aggressively he’ll wish to project American power overseas. Let’s not go to war!

Upending Trade Partnerships. I am a free-trader, and I abhor Trump’s belligerent talk about erecting trade barriers. So how could I be “unsure” about anything that promotes trade? Formal trade partnerships between nations are an aggravation to me because governments don’t trade… people do! And they do because they reap unambiguous benefits from trade. I’d much rather the U.S. simply eliminated all trade barriers unilaterally than get entangled in complicated trade agreements. These agreements are rats nests. They stipulate all sorts of conditions that are not trade related, such as environmental rules and labor policy. I therefore view them as a compromise to sovereignty and a potential impediment to economic growth. To the extent that trade agreements can be renegotiated in our favor, I should not complain. And to the extent that we’ll never see a government allow completely free and open trade, I should probably hope for agreements that at least reduce trade barriers.

The Keystone pipeline. I am happy with Trump’s decision to approve completion of the pipeline on its merits for energy delivery, and also because it is environmentally less risky than rail, barge and container ships. And yes, it is private infrastructure. But I am unhappy about the heavy application of eminent domain against landowners in the path of the pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s opposition is suspect because the path does not cross its tribal land, and the tribe originally gave its consent to the project. The tribe’s recent position could be an effort to extract rents from the process.

Executive authority. I am somewhat wary of Trump’s aggressiveness thus far. He seems eager to take actions that are questionable under existing law, such as seizing wire-transfer remittances by undocumented immigrants. Granted, he is busy “undoing” some of Obama’s actions, but let’s hope he doesn’t get carried away.

Summary

What we have here is a very mixed bag of policies. On the whole, I’m still pleased that Trump was elected. I believe he favors a smaller role for government in most affairs. But while the balance of considerations listed above seems to be in Trump’s favor, the negatives have the potential to be disastrous. He certainly wants to spend. My biggest fears, however, are that Trump will not respect the Constitution, that he will govern as a cronyist, and that he will succumb to the notion that he can actively manage the economy like a casino build.

The Progressive Underclass

09 Friday Sep 2016

Posted by Nuetzel in Poverty, Welfare State

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Andrew Lundeen, Ban the Box, Bernie Sanders, Brian Doherty, CATO Institute, Climate Change Policy, Daniel Mitchell, Donald Trump, Earned Income Tax Credit, Kurt Williamsen, Land-Use Regulation, Leigh Franke, Protectionism, Redistribution, San Francisco, Scott Beyer, TANF, The Federalist Papers, The Tax Foundation, The Urban Institute, Vanessa Brown Colder, Watt's Up With That?

The underclass has not fared well under government policies enacted in explicit efforts to improve its members’ well being. If there is any one point on which I agree with Donald Trump, it is his recent assertion that “progressive” policies have been disastrous for minorities. Indeed, there is evidence that many public programs have been abject failures, even in terms of achieving basic goals. Some programs have managed to improve the immediate lot of the impoverished, but they have done so without freeing the beneficiaries of long-term dependency, and perhaps have encouraged it. An underlying question is whether there is something endemic to these public initiatives that guarantees failure.

Arguments that public programs have such weaknesses are often based on the negative incentives they create, either for the intended beneficiaries (certain anti-poverty programs) or for employers who might otherwise work with them (absent minimum or “living” wages or regulatory obstacles). Then, of course, there are public services that are effectively monopolized (public schools) because they are “too important” to leave in the hands of private enterprise, with little recognition of the shoddy performance that is typical of institutions operating free of competitive pressure. And government action such as environmental policy often has a regressive impact, costing the poor a far greater share of income than the rich, and causing direct job losses in certain targeted industries.

A post from The Federalist Papers on “The Top 5 Ways Liberal Policies Hurt The Poor” is instructive. In addition to the welfare incentive trap, it highlights the failure of public schools to serve the educational needs of the poor, the minimum wage as a system of marginalization, urban gun control as a sacrifice of defenseless victims, and the extension of rights to illegal immigrants at the expense of U.S. citizens, especially low-skilled workers.

A fine essay by Kurt Williamsen entitled “Do Progressive Policies Hurt Black Americans?” focuses on three general areas of failure: public education, the workplace and welfare. He notes that certain educational innovations have met with success, yet are ridiculed by the progressive left because they promote competition. He cites the dismal consequences for blacks of various labor and employment laws: “prevailing wage rates, the minimum wage, union bargaining power, occupational and business licensing laws, and affirmative action laws to comply with federal and state contracting requirements“. Even more astonishing is that the original motive for some of these policies, such as minimum wages and prevailing wage laws, was to keep unskilled blacks from competing with white union labor. They still work that way. Williamsen also discusses the fact that the welfare state has essentially left low-income blacks running in place, rather than lifting them out of dependency. Unfortunately, those programs have also inflicted large social costs, such as the disintegration of family in the black community:

“Welfare programs had an insidious effect on black culture — more so than white culture — because of the way they were designed. With dramatically more blacks than whites being in poverty and with less future prospects when the War on Poverty got started, young black women often had children out of wedlock, beginning a cycle of enduring poverty and welfare wherein they relied on welfare as a main source of income, as did their children. Welfare provided more money for young women with fatherless children, on average, than the same young women could have made if they were employed. If a woman became married, she would lose benefits, making it beneficial for her to either just hook up with men or cohabitate, rather than marry.“

Redistributionist policies have long been criticized for creating incentive problems among recipients of aid. Some of those problems have been corrected with the Earned Income Tax Credit, which operates as something of a negative income tax, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which incorporates work requirements. However, as Vanessa Brown Colder at the CATO Institute points out, there is a need for further reforms to the many underperforming programs.

Like any large government program, redistribution also damages incentives for those who must pay the tab, generally those at higher income levels. High taxes ultimately discourage investment in capital and in new businesses that could improve the employment and income prospects of low-income segments. Here is Andrew Lundeen at The Tax Foundation:

“When fewer people are willing to invest, two things happen. First, the capital stock (i.e. the amount of computers, factories, equipment) shrinks over time, which makes workers less productive and decreases future wages.“

Redistributionists do their intended beneficiaries no favor by advocating for steeply progressive tax structures, which simply discourage investment in productive risk capital, impairing growth in labor income. This chart from Dan Mitchell shows a cross-country comparison of capital per worker and labor compensation. Not surprisingly, the relationship is quite strong. The lesson is that we should do everything we can to improve investment incentives. Punitive taxes on those who earn capital income is counterproductive.

Mitchell emphasizes a few other statist obstacles to empowering the disadvantaged here, including a brief discussion of how land-use regulations harm the poor. He quotes Leigh Franke of The Urban Institute:

“Restrictive land-use regulations, including zoning laws, are partially to blame for the stagnant growth… Land-use regulations may be intended to protect the environment or people’s health and safety, and even to enhance the supply of affordable housing, but in excess, they restrict housing supply, drive up home prices, and limit mobility. …More and more zoning restrictions meant less construction, fewer permits, and a restricted housing supply that drove up prices even further. …cities often have stringent zoning laws, a restricted housing supply, and high prices, making it nearly impossible for lower-income residents and newcomers, who would likely benefit most from the opportunities available, to find affordable housing.“

On the topics of local housing, labor laws, services, and regulatory burdens, Scott Beyer covers the maladies of that most progressive of cities, San Francisco. The city’s policies have helped create one of the nation’s most expensive housing markets and have made the city’s distribution of income highly unequal. It is no coincidence that the politics of most of our declining cities are dominated by the progressive left.

Here is another fascinating example of negative unintended consequences arising from intervention on behalf of a disadvantaged group: so-called “Ban the Box” (BTB) initiatives. These laws prevent employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s crime record, at least until late in the hiring process. Mitchell recently cited a study finding that BTB laws are associated with a reduction in employment opportunities for minorities. This disparate impact might be the result of more subtle screening by employers, demonstrating a reluctance to interview individuals belonging to groups with high crime rates. Apparently, employers are willing to give minorities a better chance when information on crime history is disclosed up-front.

Deleterious forms of intervention may vary from one disadvantaged group to another. For example, Native Americans have long been handicapped by federal control of their lands and their natural resources. Regulation of activity taking place on reservations is particularly burdensome, including a rule under which title to land must:

“… be passed in equal shares to multiple heirs. After several generations, these lands have become so fractionated that there are often hundreds of owners per parcel. Managing these fractionated lands is nearly impossible, and much of the land remains idle.“

Progressives often vouch for interventionism on the belief that thpse policies are ethically beyond question, such as climate change regulation. Of course, the science of whether anthropomorphic climate change is serious enough to warrant drastic and costly action is far from settled. The existence of high costs is deemed virtually irrelevant by proponents of activist environmental laws. Those costs fall heavily on the poor by raising the cost of energy-intensive necessities and by raising business costs, in turn diminishing employment opportunities. This is more pronounced from a global perspective than it is for the U.S., as emphasized in “Protect the poor – from climate change policies“, at the Watts Up With That? blog.

The world’s poor secure massive benefits from trade, but progressive policies often seek to inhibit trade based on misguided notions of “fairness” to workers in low-wage countries. And trade restrictions tend to benefit relatively high-wage workers by shielding them from competitive pressure. Brian Doherty in Reason talks about the nationalism of the Bernie Sanders brand, and how it undermines the poor. Donald Trump’s trade agenda has roughly the same implications. Protectionism should be rejected by the under-privileged, as it increases the prices they pay and ultimately reduces employment opportunities.

Certainly progressives always hope to assist the disadvantaged, but their policies have created a permanent dependent class. The simple lessons are these: working, producing and hiring must be rewarded at the margin, not penalized; interfering with wages and prices is counterproductive; all forms of regulation are costly; programs must be neutral in their impact on personal decisions; and property rights must be secure. Historically, economic freedom has lifted humanity from the grips of poverty. In virtually every instance, government micro-management has done the opposite. Unfortunately, it is difficult for progressives to overcome their reflexive tendency to “do something” about the poor by invoking the ever-klutzy power of the state.

Trade Enragement Syndrome

31 Sunday Jul 2016

Posted by Nuetzel in Free Trade, Protectionism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bernie Sanders, Capital Account Surplus, Don Boudreaux, Donald Trump, Free trade, Geocentrism, Heliocentrism, Import Competition, monopoly power, NAFTA, Protectionism, Trade Deficit, Trans-Pacific Partnership

Trade makes us richer, not poorer. The anti-trade rhetoric spouted by neo-mercantilists like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is about as sensible as a boycott on goods produced in the next town, or for that matter, on anyone with whom one might otherwise choose to trade. Don Boudreaux perfectly captures my feelings about the rising trend of protectionist sentiment by comparing it to geocentrism:

“Lately I feel as I imagine an astronomer would today feel if, centuries after Copernicus and Galileo proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth isn’t the center of the solar system, large numbers of people – including popular media pundits and politicians – began to insist that the sun and the planets and the stars do indeed all revolve around a stationary earth that is situated in the center of the universe.“

The very motivation for trade is to obtain something of value that one did not produce, to acquire that which one cannot easily acquire without trade, or to acquire it on more favorable terms than otherwise. It recognizes the reality that one’s productive efforts should be focused in an area that best suits their skills or natural talents. That’s better for the individual and better for society! Countries should produce what they are best at producing, which gives them a cost advantage in their areas of specialization. Trade allows individuals and nations to specialize in production but diversify in consumption, allowing them to enjoy access to the broadest possible range of goods and services produced worldwide.

The consummation of any trade heralds the attainment of mutual benefits to the parties: one produces and employs at a profit; the other consumes a thing of greater value than the price paid. The payments for foreign goods must come from either domestically-produced goods or from foreign investment in domestic real estate, buildings, factories or other real and financial assets. That is, if we purchase more goods from abroad than we export, then foreigners must either hold the dollars they receive or invest them in other ways. The latter represent trades in assets, and those trades, too, are mutually beneficial. The result is that U.S. investors gain and/or the economy benefits from new, productivity-enhancing plant and equipment, not terrible outcomes. Trade deficits are balanced by capital surpluses, and trade surpluses are balanced by capital deficits. Taken together, trade in goods and capital (assets) always balance and are mutually beneficial in every case, whether we run a trade deficit or a surplus.

That said, it’s worth emphasizing that so-called free trade agreements are something of a sham. Countries don’t trade. People do. Unfortunately, I have indulged the notion of national trade negotiation in the past, if only implicitly, by vouching for trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP as sort of second-best solutions to the horrid reality of trade restrictions promulgated by protectionist politicians. I reasoned that dismantling those barriers, one-country (or region) at-a-time was preferable to doing nothing. However, negotiations like these become mired in extraneous issues such as environmental policies, labor laws, immigration rules and other commercial policies. Nor do those negotiations always inhibit domestic subsidies to politically-favored activities. Indeed, they might actually encourage subsidies for value-eroding projects. Again, the entire process of trade negotiations is extraneous to the extent that trade takes place between individuals. Unfettered gains from trade require the absence of trade barriers. Dropping them unilaterally would benefit consumers, encourage efficiency by domestic producers, and provide a great example for other nations.

Opponents of trade, like Messrs. Trump and Sanders, lack a basic understanding of the reasons why individuals engage in cooperative exchange. Or at least they fail to acknowledge, for political reasons or sheer density, that what improves well-being at home is freedom to transact, across our borders as well as within our borders. To prevent this activity is to forcibly deny individual freedom. Boudreaux makes this point be asking trade opponents a series of questions, the first few of which are listed below:

“– Are you made richer if the supermarket … at which you once shopped hires armed goons to force you to start shopping there again?

– Do you believe that the owners and the employees of [that store] are so ethically entitled to your continuing patronage as a consumer that they are justified in employing armed goons to prevent you from shopping elsewhere?

– Do you believe that, now that [the store] has successfully forced you not to shop at competing supermarkets, that the owners and employees … will work as diligently and as creatively as possible to keep the prices they charge low and the quality of their service high?

– Do you believe that the higher profits and higher wages reaped by [the store’s] owners and workers as a result of their holding you hostage as a customer make you more prosperous?

– Do you believe that the higher profits and higher wages reaped by [the store’s] owners and workers as a result of their holding you hostage as a customer make your community more prosperous, even though [the store’s] higher profits and higher wages are necessarily funded by money that you and other … ‘customers’ are forced not to spend on other goods, services, or investment options?

– If you believe that [the store] has a right to force you not to shop for food at other supermarkets, do you believe also that [the store] has a right to force you not to grow more of your own food, or not to eat out more often at restaurants, or not to go on a diet?“

It is difficult to believe that educated people believe restrictions on the freedom of individuals to cooperate with others will improve their well being. Of course, those educated people are often politicians who stand to benefit from frightening voters, and who have no interest in reminding them that a flow of foreign goods broadens choices, reduces prices, and provides valuable discipline to domestic businesses. Without competitive discipline, we forgo important benefits and instead allow quality and price to come under the arrogant power of monopolists. There are, of course, many producers who are willing to provide meaningful support to politicians who will protect them from foreign competition. That’s not capitalism. Its cronyism!

Good Leaders Aren’t Trade Warriors

30 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by Nuetzel in Free Trade, Protectionism

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Bernie Sanders, CATO Institute, Currency Manipulation, Daniel J. Ikenson, Direct Foreign Investment, Don Boudreaux, Donald Trump, Dumping, Federal Reserve, Free trade, Hillary Clinton, NAFTA, Open Trade, Paul Krugman, People's Bank of China, Predatory Pricing, Protectionism, Reserve Currency, Ted Cruz, TPP, Trade Deficit, Trade War, Unfair Competition

Protectionism

The protectionist foreign trade rhetoric issued by the major-party presidential candidates is intended to appeal to ignorant economic instincts. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders come to mind most readily, but Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are jumping in with similar campaign positioning. The thrust of these populist, anti-trade appeals is that America is losing jobs to “unfair” foreign competition, an argument that distorts the very objective of trade: consumers take part in exchange in order to consume; they capture value from high quality, unique merchandise and competitive terms. Ultimately, producers engage in trade to gain the wherewithal to consume. Consumption is the real end-game.

It can be misleading to talk about “nations” engaging in trade with each other, despite the emphasis placed on trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP. In the first place, it is better to stress consumers and producers, rather than “nations”, because most foreign trade is private, cooperative activity, not national decision-making. But the candidates persist in characterizing trade as a “contest”. That misleading notion is what prompts governments to muck up the trade environment by imposing restrictions on the free flow of goods and services. Trade agreements have been heralded as great achievements, but they never approximate a regime of truly liberalized trade because the latter requires no formal agreement whatsoever, merely a hands-off approach by government. And trade agreements tend to entangle trade issues with other policy objectives, holding consumers hostage in the process.

We hear from opportunistic candidates that jobs are lost to trade with foreigners. But again, consumption, not “jobs” per se, is the real objective of economic activity. If domestic jobs are lost, it is generally because consumers judge the value produced inferior to what’s offered from abroad. American consumers should not be obliged to support inferior value, domestic market power unchecked by competition, monopoly prices and limited choices. Patriotic jingoism attempts to blind us from these economic imperatives.

The standard protectionist narrative is that foreign “nations” cheat on trade with the U.S. via currency manipulation, predatory pricing or “dumping”, “unfair” wages or other unfair labor practices. Do any of these objections to free trade hold water?

The “fairness” of foreign wages and labor practices is a matter of perspective. Wages cannot be considered unfair merely because they are low relative to U.S. wages. Wages paid to workers by foreign exporters tend to be consistent with the standard of living in those societies, and they are often some of the best income opportunities available there. This is economic dynamism that lifts masses from the grips of poverty. It’s absurd to caste it as “exploitation”.

Is it “unfair” to competitors in the U.S.? Not if they know how to compete and are allowed to do so. Unfortunately, government regulatory policies in the U.S. often present obstacles to the competitiveness of domestic producers. This is well-illustrated by Daniel J. Ikenson of The CATO Institute in “Crucifying Trade For The Sins Of Domestic Policy“. He emphasizes that trade promotes economic growth, but when it causes job losses for some workers, U.S. economic policies make it difficult for those workers to find new jobs.

“Incentivize businesses to hire people to train them in exchange for their commitment to work for the company for a period of time. Reform a corporate tax system that currently discourages repatriation of an estimated $2 trillion of profits parked in U.S. corporate coffers abroad, deterring domestic investment, which is needed for job creation. Curb excessive and superfluous regulations that raise the costs of establishing and operating businesses without any marginal improvements in social, safety, environmental, or health outcomes. Permanently eliminate imports duties on intermediate goods to reduce production costs and make U.S.-based businesses more globally competitive. Advocate the retirement of protectionist occupational licensing practices.“

So-called “dumping” by foreign producers, or selling below cost, is an unsustainable practice, by definition. Pricing below cost is difficult to prove, especially if local wages are low and raw inputs are plentiful. If dumping can be proven, retaliation might feel good but would punish American consumers. A foreign producer might be subsidized by its government as a matter of industrial policy and economic planning, an unhealthy policy to begin with, and possibly to facilitate a long-run market advantage in foreign trade. The U.S. itself is thick with subsidized industry, however, so arguing for retaliation on those grounds is more than a little hypocritical.

I rarely quote Paul Krugman, but when I do, it’s from work he’s done as an actual economist, not as an agenda-driven pundit. So we have the following Krugman quote courtesy of Don Boudreaux:

“I believe that if the rhetoric that portrays international trade as a struggle continues to dominate the discourse, then policy debate will in the end be dominated by men like [James] Goldsmith, who are willing to take that rhetoric to its logical conclusion. That is, trade will be treated as war, and the current system of relatively open world markets will disintegrate because nobody but a few professors believes in the ideology of free trade.

And that will be a shame, because for all their faults the professors are right. The conflict among nations that so many policy intellectuals imagines prevails is an illusion; but it is an illusion that can destroy the reality of mutual gains from trade.“

David Harsanyi asks how American consumers will like more restrictive trade policy when forced to pay more for smart phones, laptops, HDTVs, cars, food, and any number of other goods. The usual anti-trade narrative is that foreign producers have harmed the manufacturing sector disproportionately, but in another article, Ikenson lays bare the fallacy that U.S. manufacturing has been victimized by trade.

The consequences of trade restrictions are higher prices, reduced production and reduced consumption, an undesirable combination of outcomes. This means higher prices of imported goods as well as domestic goods, whose producers will face less competition by virtue of the trade barriers. With reduced availability of imported goods, economic theory predicts that domestic producers will not fully meet the frustrated demands. This is a classic response of producers with monopoly power: restraint of trade. The negative consequences are compounded when foreign governments impose retaliatory measures against the U.S., harming American exporters.

A further misgiving expressed by politicians regarding free trade is that America’s trade deficit implies greater indebtedness to the rest of the world. This argument has been made by a few leftist economists who misunderstand the nature of direct investment, and who tend to think erroneously of economic outcomes as zero-sum. It’s true that foreign producers who receive dollars in exchange for goods often invest those proceeds in U.S. assets. A fairly small share of that investment is in debt issued by U.S. governments and private companies. But a much larger share is invested in U.S. equities and real assets, which are not U.S. debts. As Don Boudreaux points out, the domestic sellers of those assets generally reinvest in other U.S. assets, so private U.S. ownership of global capital is not diminished by increased foreign investment in the U.S.

An interesting aspect of the trade debate is that the dollar’s role as a global reserve currency implies that the U.S. must run a chronic trade deficit. The rest of the world uses dollars to trade goods and assets, but to acquire dollars, foreigners must sell things to holders of dollars in the U.S. This keeps the foreign exchange value of the dollar elevated, which makes imports cheaper to Americans and U.S. exports more costly to foreigners. Those dollars are a form of U.S. debt, but it is debt for which we should feel flattered, as long as confidence in the dollar remains. A diminished role for the dollar in world trade would lead to a surplus of dollars, undermining its value and promoting inflation in the U.S. Let’s hope for a gradual transition to that world.

Finally, the presidential candidates allege that foreign currency manipulation is another reason for American job losses. One prominent example occurred last year when China allowed the renminbi to decline to more realistic levels on foreign exchange markets. Donald Trump called this an unfair trade tactic, but apparently the People’s Bank felt that it couldn’t support the renminbi without undermining economic growth. The earlier dollar peg also helped to keep Chinese inflation in check. Contrary to Trump’s assertions, if China stopped manipulating its currency altogether, the renminbi would go even lower!

Beyond the opportunistic political arguments, the point is that central banks (including the U.S. Federal Reserve) manage their currencies to achieve a variety of objectives, not merely to promote exports. That is not an endorsement of such policies. It is an objective fact. Anyone can argue that a foreign currency is “too low” if their objective is to demonize a country and it’s exports to the U.S., but the assertion may not be grounded in facts as markets assess them.

The arguments against open trade policies are generally specious, hypocritical or grounded in a mentality of victimhood. Vibrant producers who are free of government restrictions should welcome the expanded markets available to them abroad and should not seek redress against competition via government protection. Liberalized trade has engendered tremendous economic benefits over the years, while protectionist policies have only brought severe contractions. Let’s be free and trade freely!