Donald Trump is wrong on trade. So are his liberal critics.
That Trump has rightly identified international trade as a problem for Americans is mainly the happenstance of a broken clock being right twice a day
More and more, Donald Trump sounds like a standard Republican on economics: Slash taxes and regulations to unleash the wealthy, so the bounty they create can shower down on the rest of us.
The one exception is Trump's diehard opposition to trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP. In vehemently criticizing these trade deals, he's not just rejecting GOP orthodoxy, but a lot of establishment Democratic orthodoxy, too. After all, Bill Clinton was instrumental in creating NAFTA, and Barack Obama is TPP's biggest backer.
This scrambling of ideology can leave liberal critiques of Trump's trade stance a bit wanting. Take this broadside by Vox's Matt Yglesias against under-the-radar economist Peter Navarro, who made a much-more-detailed-than-usual case for Trump's economic agenda.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Part of Navaro's case centers on how environmental regulations and high taxes on the rich and corporations are bad. But the trade portion is what drew Yglesias' ire. And that's where things get a lot trickier, because Navarro's basic point is sound: The United States' trade deficit — which was a whopping $500 billion in 2015, or about 2.7 percent of GDP — is a major drag on the economy.
A trade deficit means there are more U.S. dollars leaving to drive economic activity in other countries than foreign currencies coming into the U.S. to drive economic activity here. By definition, this makes it harder to create more American jobs than if the two flows were balanced, or if we had a trade surplus. Closing the trade deficit would go a long way to helping us reach full employment — a point made repeatedly by prominent left-wing economists.
Yglesias, however, accused Navarro of making "a mistake that would get you flunked out of an AP economics class." Suppose the U.S. suddenly made it illegal to import oil and petroleum products, thus wiping out $180 billion of the trade deficit in one swoop? "What would actually happen," Yglesias wrote, "is that gasoline would become much more expensive, consumers would need to cut back spending on non-gasoline items, businesses would face a higher cost structure, and the overall economy would slow down with inflation-adjusted incomes falling."
Yes, if you make an imported good more expensive (by slapping a tariff on it) or just force people to buy the more expensive American version (by legal fiat), prices will rise, which could slow down the economy. But Yglesias ignores that more spending on American-made goods means more income in Americans' pockets, which drives up domestic demand and creates more jobs. Instead of reducing growth, it could just reshuffle growth's composition. This is basically the same mistake critics of the minimum wage make when they assume that raising the "price of labor" will mechanically result in less demand for labor.
We do have a problem with higher-priced American exports leaving us with a trade deficit. But this is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed systemically. This is where the question of currency manipulation comes to the fore. Basically, governments and central banks in other countries — most notably China — have bought up huge stockpiles of financial instruments denominated in U.S. dollars. That drives up demand for our currency, raises its value relative to other currencies, and makes our exports more expensive.
Strengthening rules against currency manipulation in our trade deals, as Navarro recommends, would be worthwhile. Unfortunately, Navarro mainly looks to retaliatory tariffs as punishment. A much better solution is what's called "countervailing currency intervention" — in plain English, have the U.S. government or the Federal Reserve buy up financial instruments denominated in offending countries' currencies until the effects of the two stockpiles balance out. Rather than throw up walls to trade, address the imbalances at their source.
The problems with trade deals and the trade deficit are very technocratic and nuanced. And the idea that a thuggish reality TV star is going to thoughtfully deal with them seems unlikely, to put it very mildly. Trump seems to think the absence of his own strutting, bullying ego is the main thing holding back better trade policy. And rather than seeing international trade as a problem of global power-brokers manipulating a byzantine system to the detriment of workers around the world, he views it as raw tribal combat between his team (Americans) and other teams (crafty foreigners). That Trump has rightly identified international trade as a problem for Americans — one long-ignored by elites in both parties — is mainly the happenstance of a broken clock being right twice a day.
Reforming U.S. trade requires a nuanced understanding of how all the policy gears interact, and a populist iron-gut willingness to throw some calcified establishment wisdom out the window. The tragedy revealed by the 2016 election is that America has lots of people with one of those two qualities, but few with both.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Jeff Spross was the economics and business correspondent at TheWeek.com. He was previously a reporter at ThinkProgress.
-
'Elevating Earth Day into a national holiday is not radical — it's practical'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
UAW scores historic win in South at VW plant
Speed Read Volkswagen workers in Tennessee have voted to join the United Auto Workers union
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Today's political cartoons - April 22, 2024
Cartoons Monday's cartoons - dystopian laughs, WNBA salaries, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published