Comments 14

特朗普的贸易噱头

Mar 9, 2018 Dani Rodrik

发自剑桥——美国总统特朗普在贸易政策方面的咆哮远比实际行动夸张得多。但这种情况可能正在变化。他已经在1月提高了进口洗衣机和太阳能电池的关税。如今他已经下令对进口钢铁和铝征收高额关税（分别为25％和10％），而且是基于世界贸易组织规则中绝少使用的国家安全例外条款。

许多评论家对这些决策的可能性都有点反应过度，纷纷预测说可能爆发“贸易战”甚至更糟的状况。一位专家称钢铁和铝关税是自1971年以来最重大的贸易限制措施——当年尼克松总统为应对美国的贸易赤字而开征10％的进口附加税——并预测说“这将对全球贸易造成严重后果”。而《华尔街日报》则将特朗普的关税称之为“其总统任期中最大的政策失误”——相对于当局在俄罗斯，美国联邦调查局，朝鲜，移民，税务，白人民族主义等许许多多方面的失误，这个评价真是有点抬举了。

事实上特朗普迄今为止的贸易手段都不过是些小把戏而已。特别是与1980年代罗纳德·里根总统政府的贸易保护主义政策的规模和范围相比简直就是苍白无力。里根提高关税，并加强了对纺织，汽车，摩托车，钢铁，木材，糖和电子等一大批行业的限制。他其中比较著名的一招是迫使日本“自愿”限制汽车出口。当日本声称无法保持出口微晶片的高价格时，他立马就对部分日本电子产品施加了100％关税。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Dani Rodrik

Writing for PS since 1998
154 Commentaries

Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy, Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science, and, most recently, Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 14 in all 14 Comments on this article

Elizabeth Pula Jun 10, 2018

What is being called "policies" is an absolute denial of what is the true intent by especially, the present leadership group in the US. How can you even call these actions "policies"?
- Elizabeth Pula Jun 10, 2018
  
  These actions are a total denial of any validity to any action that even comes close to establishing any kind of state, national or international policy about any issue. These actions are the final decimation of "National Policies" on any level. If the other nation states' leadership allow these types of actions to continue, they then are just as corrupt in their intent to destroy historical law and policy internationally and in individual nation states. How can you support such corrupting actions? Don't you even understand the most basic principles of what any "actor" is, and what any "law" is, the limits, definitions, and purpose?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula Jun 10, 2018

No there will be VAT shoved down the throats of the majority in the US to their detriment that develops into street battles between racial, and social communities. Examine the real issues for Syria and the Mideast, beyond the "religious and dogma veils of distraction and political cover of all players".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Janos Nagy Mar 20, 2018

Indeed Mr Rodrik book about globalization and it's problems was an interesting reading a few years ago.
Now it was interesting because the writer never really explained what is globalization.
In this short article he uses his time for Trump bashing like Trump would have the one who implemented trade policies according by globalist ideology.
The most important question is what it is that was globalized?
The answers.
Profits absolutely yes.
labor movement other than in the European union within the union the answer is No.So that leaves out 90 percent of the labor out.
And the most important element Taxes and policies that influence cost and therefore the price and I'm talking about especially policies like minimum wages and all the other similar policies that influences the cost and price therefore the competitive landscape the answer is a big No No!
So all your globalists globalized the profits only for the purpose of helping the poor countries.
That is the biggest lie of all time.
In the developed countries debts government's and personal grew like never before many trillions of dollars.
Some calculations shows abour 70 trillion since 2000.
Of course if profit is not reinvested where it created the debt added debt must be used to pay for the difference.
How do you explain that here in Canada personal debt levels increased to 170 percent since 2000 from a healthy between 80 to 90 percent the years before 2000 as long you can find a statistic.
Government's debt increased 400 percents.
Check the trading between some 4 billion people.
China India and Pakistan.
You are wecome.
There is not much trade between them.
So if trading is helping the poor why dont they trade between them? 4 billion people!
How about the answer that government's policies in those countries did not created advantages in the cost and the price.

I can agree that 20 30 percent tariffs doesn't compensate for the loss of competitiveness created by government's policies.
These policies started well before globalization started around 2000.
The only policy that worked before and would work present time is the quota system that leaves some healty percentage of economic activity to the domestic businesses and labor force.

CHEAP IS NOT AN ECONOMIC RIGHT!

One selling his her labor for a fair market value that is not influenced by government's policies is the basic economic rights of individuals.

When government's policies (trade) are influencing the market value of the labor in industries it is the governments duty to protect those individuals with other policies like quotas.
So protectionism is a policy that uphold the economic right's of individuals to sell their labor for a fair market value.
Not implementing counter policies is a blatant economic discrimination against their basic economic rights.
Globalist policies continually discriminate againt individuals basic economic rights.
- Elizabeth Pula Jun 10, 2018
  
  Great article in the NYT that really traces the behind-the-scenes effects on a nation's tax structure. Tax revenue is the foundation that allows for any kind of economic equality within a nation state. The present program that is REALLY being promoted in the US is the one that has destroyed South Africa- corruption, and pocketing of the nation's wealth by just an entitled few. All you have to do in the following link is change a few names of the actors, no joke, it is the epitome of modern-day international irony even down to the reverse colors of the actors. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/10/world/africa/south-africa-corruption-taxes.html?emc=edit_th_180610&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=454721650610
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard S. Stone Mar 19, 2018

It's true that Trump is not a normal politician: He's far worse, and a fool and liar to boot. As with the most recent wave of "populists" in power he is mainly just a crony capitalist, trying to make money for himself and his friends. If there could be anything more transparent it would be difficult to imagine.

But he is addressing, or at least proposed to address, in one sense, a real problem, which is that the present economics of running a large business embody a rather confusing view in terms of customers. Most large businesses these days are run as if the shareholders are the customers, and the workers are fungible, so everything has to be done to maximize the return to the investors. As Adam Smith pointed out, many years ago, such a view of profits is pernicious in its effect, and unjustifiable. Such a view is somewhat contrary to the nationalist/populist view, which would, one might think, consider the welfare of the workers, frequently assumed to be one's fellow citizens.

One could easily justify a vote for Trump, if only he would address and hopefully remedy the suppression of wages of the past few years. This relates to the health care costs too, which would be a trivial issue if pay had kept pace with productivity and actual economic growth.

Instead almost all the recent benefits of growth (not a real surprise) have flowed to the already rich. It seems somewhat late in the game to try to remedy that problem, but better late than never. I guess.

However, despite all the talk, not much is really happening to address the core issue.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chris Jones Mar 16, 2018

Trump recognizes that steel and aluminum production in the U.S. is a national security and infrastructure problem oof alarming proportions. The Chinese, in somewhat of a national defense and infrastructure posture, promoted advantageous policies of low taxation and low labor costs to attract U.S. industrial and technological companies to relocate and modernize. Trump realized that deregulation and lower tax policy was necessary to bring industrial production and technological innovation back to the U.S. His tariff proposals are designed to offset VATs and other policies that are used to disadvantage competition by U.S. based companies.
With the increasing imperialist natiinal policies exhibited by China, Russia, and Iran, it is prudent to increase U.S. industrial production assets by reforming prohibitive tax policies and rebuild U.S. infrastructure in the case that international transportation links are endangered or threatened.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Mar 14, 2018

When the steel and aluminum users find that their production costs are rising and their competitiveness falling, Trump will respond by placing higher tariffs on the next stage of production/consumption. All his business deals were viewed in the zero-sum context and trade deals will be no different. Consumers will be told (1) they now have jobs so they can afford slightly higher prices and (2) tax cuts also have enabled consumption to be maintained with higher tariffs.

Navarro might be channeling Alexander Hamilton and Friedrich List.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alex Aslanidis Mar 12, 2018

It's sad seeing the so-called liberal economists not acknowledging the need for trade to be balanced.

It's funny how they don't seem to have a problem with governments protecting their trade balance through tight fiscal policy and demand management, and yet they seem to have a problem with tariffs. It's funny how they don't have a problem with Germany benefiting from a weak Euro (as opposed to the value that the Deutsche Mark would have), but they have a problem with Trump talking down the dollar. It's funny how they don't mind the sudden stop of capital flows resulting in recessions, but they mind protectionism.

In truth, their double standards aren't funny at ll. They are deeply tragic.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
B Wilds Mar 12, 2018

Populism has been on a tear the last several years altering how events are being framed. In truth, the subject of globalization is made up of many threads interwoven in a complex way. The discussion often extends into several issues and is not limited to free trade. Other social concerns also feed into the mix, things like immigration, human rights, global warming, nationalism, inequality, even population growth. The political impact on all these issues, in the end, affect how countries view the world and their foreign policy. More on this subject in the article below.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-stop-globalization-or-populist.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Carlos Imendia Mar 12, 2018

Pretend that by not being like a career politician the current president pursues the common good is a fallacy. With his tariffs is protecting two industries, politically well connected indeed, but also increasing costs in industries down the stream (users of steel and aluminum). In the short run, it might not kill jobs due to spending will shift from imports to other goods, but it might slow the growth rate in the long run. If there is retaliation, exporters will suffer. It seems to be a disruptive measure, Bannon-like, not an strategy to minimize the imbalances in our trade account. Protecting special interests, the president resembles a "career" politician, while imposing levies in the name of "national security" proves he has not ever read a 101 Economics text book nor has a capable economic team.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Phil Cartier Mar 11, 2018

Mr. Trump does things differently than the career politicians since their focus is getting re-elected and not necessarily what is good for more people. Considering all the outright hostility and "the resistance" he has encountered, including inside the supposedly well run Federal bureaucracy he has made significant first year progress on his agenda of growing the economy and increasing employment.

"-a remarkable claim in light of the administration’s missteps over Russia, the FBI, North Korea, immigration, taxation, white nationalism, and much else." This quote pretty much outlines the writer's biases. Good of her to lay them out so nicely for us to see. All the items mentioned started in the previous administration, with the full approval of the then President, but she missed draconian environmental regulations, financial relations(hard to see how a bank with less than $50billion in assets or a smallish insurance company could trigger another financial crisis, an environmental disaster- the EPA caused Gold King Mine pollution. Lot's of heavy metals pollution that will contaminate the Animas river and downstream for year.

Another New Deal is exactly what we don't need. We haven't start to recover from LBJ's War on Poverty that has nearly destroyed the poorer communities in the country, Black, Hispanic, Asian, African. The socialist policies of "money from afar" that are supposed to fix everything with no effective plan in mind have yet to work.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
nigel southway Mar 10, 2018

The economist that wrote this needs to go back and re-learn what a true localized trade bloc can do for the citizens within it and the safety of the planet.. the current 8 times growth in global trade has only damaged both in the past.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/j4oeZeq/zh;

特朗普的贸易噱头

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

How to Lose a Trade War

Can Trump Make a Deal with China?

Will Germany Permit Joint European Security?

America First, Fallout Later

Business and Biodiversity

Iran’s 40 Years of Strife

Africa’s Digital Generation Gap

The AI Road to Serfdom?

What’s Left of the Populist Left?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register