pull down to refresh

By now, many economists are hoarse screaming that higher tariffs and a trade war will raise prices and hurt the U.S. economy.
But many Americans aren't listening. A recent poll by Quinnipiac University, conducted in late January, found that 42% of Americans believe tariffs will help the U.S. economy. The United States' recent history with free trade might help explain the disconnect between economists and a large swath of the American public.
For decades, mainstream economists claimed that free trade would be a clear win for the United States. Sure, they said, there would be some losers. But those losers would get new jobs in a growing economy and basically everything would ultimately be fine.
Everything turned out not to be fine. No research has made that more abundantly clear than a series of studies over the last decade-plus on what's known as the "China Shock." The shock refers to what happened to American communities after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. These studies have found that as a flood of Chinese imports came rushing into the U.S., it destroyed well over a million manufacturing jobs and created basically miniature depressions in communities around the country. Contrary to the assumptions of old-school economists, manufacturing workers struggled to adapt and move to new jobs in the aftermath. Read more..
This is a good case study of where economists can get in trouble with their glib simplicity.
"Free trade is welfare enhancing in aggregate." Economists get this right.
"There will be losers." Economists get this right too.
"The surplus from free trade will eventually make those losers better off." Non sequitur. My advisor often asked to see these magical side payments that are making everyone better off.
There's another important element that explains domestic support for tariffs, even fairly large ones. Mainstream trade theory, which is probably the most accurate empirical economic theory, supports the idea that large nations with diverse industrial bases can be net beneficiaries of tariffs.
reply
83 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 13 Feb
We were really hit with a 1-2 punch
  1. "free trade" with partner using slaves
  2. Lawmakers ramped up environmental regulations on us and completely ignored any semblance of environmental concern of trading partner
reply
I forgot to even mention the regulatory part. Yeah, if you're going to go the free trade and let the domestic economy adapt route, you have to deregulate the economy so it is adaptable.
reply
World Trade Organization never rules against China
The referees are definitely rigged
reply
"The surplus from free trade will eventually make those losers better off." Non sequitur. My advisor often asked to see these magical side payments that are making everyone better off.
Too many DC policy wonks got their economics degree and remembered "Free trade is welfare enhancing" but didn't actually learn how to conduct the welfare analysis. (Because it's too hard for them.)
reply
Also, welfare enhancing for who? Not everyone is a universalist.
I don't like tariffs, because a) it's a violation of people's rights to restrict voluntary transactions and b) it makes poor people in foreign countries worse off. The financial impact on Americans is actually fairly negligible. According to one of my trade professors, if the US went full autarky, GDP would only take about a 3% hit.
reply
Another good point. Economists have implicitly adopted a consequentialist ethic, whether they're aware of it or not. But I'm not willing to trade my freedoms for mOaR coNsuMptIon ... and I'm sure not many other people are either.
Reminds me of the grad student who wrote a paper on how having immigrant neighbors gives you less racist views, therefore we should randomly put immigrants in areas with a small immigrant population.
reply
I love silly myopic policy prescriptions. Grad students are a treasure trove for those.
reply
I actually called it out in the seminar haha and my colleagues backed me up. One guy even said something like, "That's just going to make the natives go <makes a gun loading motion with his hands>"
Has this grad student been to Germany today? Twenty percent of Germany is foreign born today
reply
The plan was basically the same as what they did with Japan after the end of World War II, but it went wrong. The strategic purposes of the United States in the massive financial investment in Japan gave great results: An ally, financial return and military bases, but by opening the market with China... the result is there for everyone to see
reply