Attention Economy


Friday, June 15, 2018

Economic and Political Consequences of Trade Protectionism [Updated]

People Aren’t Rational, and That’s Why We Need Free Trade

US Tariffs start to backfire

America is less open to trade than presumed

Critique of US Trade Policy
Anne Krueger on recent US trade policies

Harvard’s Jeffrey Frankel notes:
“The least logical of the recurring Trump obsessions is the demand that China reduce the U.S. bilateral trade deficit. The Chinese government has no policy levers that could reduce the bilateral balance by the mooted $100 billion or $200 billion. If China wanted to give Trump a superficial “win,” it could reduce the bilateral trade deficit some by buying more American natural gas or by routing smartphone exports through a third country like South Korea.
But the economics would be illusory. There would be virtually no effect on the overall U.S. trade deficit: We would otherwise sell the natural gas to some other country, and in reality those smartphones already get about 95 percent of their value added from South Korea, the United States and other countries anyway. Focusing on the bilateral balance is a waste of time. Regardless what happens with China, the overall U.S. trade deficit will rise this year as a result of the Republican tax cuts, enacted at a time when the economy is already producing at the limit of its capacity.”

WSJ Editorial: Trump’s Steel Destruction

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman: Oh, What a Stupid Trade War

Cato Institute’s DANIEL J. IKENSON: Steel Yourself as Trump Cuts Off Trade to Spite His Face