Bob Murphy sent me to this tweet:
Here are a few initial reactions:
1. How’d Smoot-Hawley work out?
2. Here are some job totals:
Steel industry (2016) = 87,000
Manufacturing employment = 12,555,000
Steel tariffs boost jobs in steel and lower employment in other manufacturing industries.
3. Some economists think the overall trade deficit is important, but I don’t know of any who think bilateral trade deficits mean anything. Does it matter whether Korea sends us computers directly, or has its parts assembled in China and then re-exported to the US?
4. Most people assume that the US runs a persistent trade deficit. But if the trade deficit really were persistently negative, properly measured, then this time series should also be negative and falling. Instead, the US surplus on investment income is strongly positive and rapidly increasing. If this is what it means to be a “debtor nation”, then lets have lots more debt!
5. Trade barriers hurt export industries, regardless of whether or not other countries choose retaliate. The “retaliation” comes from the normal workings of the market.
6. If someone you know shoots himself in the foot, is it a good idea to retaliate by shooting yourself in the foot?
7. There is no “national security argument” for steel tariffs. The military doesn’t use much steel and the US produces orders of magnitude more steel than the military needs. Future world wars will be nuclear, and future smaller wars will in no way restrict US access to Canadian or European steel.
8. All of Trump’s competent advisors opposed this move. Every single one.
On the same day, the courts reversed one of Trump’s more important moves toward deregulation. And less than a month ago the Congress removed cost controls on Medicare, which will increase the federal government’s unfunded liabilities by $52 trillion:
The most significant federal entitlement reform in our lifetime was a little noticed provision that Democrats included in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The provision garnered almost no attention from the mainstream media or even from most conservative commentators. Yet according to the Medicare Trustees report that followed, this one provision eliminated $52 trillion of unfunded federal government liability – an amount that was more than three times the size of the US economy.
Here is a second surprise, one that has also been almost completely ignored. In last week’s bi-partisan budget agreement, Republican members of Congress agreed to completely undo the Democrat’s reform – recommitting the federal government to trillions of dollars of entitlement spending for which there are no dedicated future revenues.
It’s been a really bad 30 days.
PS. There is one silver lining here. Just as the steel industry is much smaller than most people assume, the cost of these tariffs will be smaller than many economists fear. It’s a tiny percentage of GDP. The bigger risk is what comes next.
READER COMMENTS
bobroberts170
Mar 2 2018 at 3:05pm
Humanity has a nasty way of forgetting tough learned lessons. I hope we don’t have to relearn this one, too.
I appreciate voices like those at EconLog that day in and day out remind people of the importance of free markets and free trade.
Philo
Mar 2 2018 at 3:21pm
“All of Trump’s competent advisors opposed this move. Every single one.” Not a very compelling point, since favoring this move is a very strong indication of incompetence.
bill
Mar 2 2018 at 5:29pm
I don’t know if this is the best series to look at, but US steel production has been fairly stable for 35 years. I’m pretty sure that due to productivity improvements, employment in the steel industry fell significantly.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IPN3311A2RN
Alan Goldhammer
Mar 2 2018 at 5:33pm
#8 – One wonders whether the number of “competent” advisors can be counted on more than one hand. It will be interesting to see if Gary Cohn follows through and leaves this White House.
BC
Mar 2 2018 at 7:10pm
“5. Trade barriers hurt export industries, regardless of whether or not other countries choose retaliate. The ‘retaliation’ comes from the normal workings of the market.”
This point seems to be lost on most people. Taxes on imports are already taxing exports. When/if other countries retaliate through tariffs, that will tax our exports and imports even more.
In terms of “optimal” retaliation, if other countries taxed their domestic industries that compete against our exports (politically difficult, I know) and used the proceeds to subsidize their steel industries, would that offset the impact of our steel tariffs? Presumably, our steel tariffs increase steel production and decrease production of exports in the US while decreasing foreign steel production and increasing foreign production of goods that compete against US exports. Would a tax on those foreign goods that compete against US exports to subsidize foreign steel reverse that effect?
“6. If someone you know shoots himself in the foot, is it a good idea to retaliate by shooting yourself in the foot?”
According to people that think inequality in and of itself is important, shooting yourself is like healing the other person’s foot.
Scott Sumner
Mar 2 2018 at 7:51pm
Everyone, Good comments.
Mark Z
Mar 2 2018 at 10:38pm
I don’t envy the task of having to try to explain basic trade theory to the president. Maybe the competent advisers can draw straws or something.
HL
Mar 2 2018 at 11:24pm
Sorry for an unrelated comment, but a big news out of Mexico.
Banxico (Central Bank of Mexico) just adopted “targeting inflation forecast” as its forward guidance principle. You can check the summary on slid 34 of Banxico’s Quarterly Report Presentation.
HL
Mar 2 2018 at 11:26pm
Guidelines for monetary policy
(1) Monetary policy actions that allow reaching the inflation forecasted path in the horizon at which monetary policy operates.
(2) Evaluate if inflation deviations from its projected path justify adjustments in the monetary policy stance, taking into account:
– All the available information, including inflation expectations
– The horizon at which monetary policy operates (4-6 quarters)
(3) Evaluate the balance of risks for inflation relative to its forecasts and the associated uncertainty
As from this Inflation Report, forecasts for the quarterly average of annual changes of headline and core inflation will be published.
Antischiff
Mar 3 2018 at 12:19am
Dr. Sumner,
Milton Friedman used to say running trade surpluses was a good thing. He asked how it can be a bad thing if a country gets to consume more imports than exports required to pay for them, to loosely paraphrase.
Do you agree with this?
britman
Mar 3 2018 at 8:49am
I have been looking for some info on the relevant elasticities. What is the incidence of a 25% tariff on steel? Can someone post any pointers?
David R Henderson
Mar 3 2018 at 9:32am
@Antischiff,
Milton Friedman used to say running trade surpluses was a good thing. He asked how it can be a bad thing if a country gets to consume more imports than exports required to pay for them, to loosely paraphrase.
I think you meant “trade deficits,” right?
James Hanley
Mar 3 2018 at 9:55am
Respectfully, your glib claim that future world wars will be nuclear is little different from the claims that tariffs will be good for jobs. Both are made outside of the speaker’s area of expertise but presented without meaningful argument as simple fact. And world wars are not the only wars of concern.
The only difference is that there’s a chance you’re right. But using a claim outside your field where there’s only a chance you’re right as a basis for your argument is a weak point in an otherwise strong essay.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 3 2018 at 11:50am
This Trump tweet is remarkable indeed. He seems to think that (1) countries as such trade (or should trade as a block), and (2) that any purchase is a loss. Only sales are wins; from that point of view, slaves won all the time (although their masters did make purchases on their behalf).
About the net income receipts, it is an interesting fact that they correspond to a net foreign INDEBTEDNESS, which is the result of continuous current-account deficits since the 1970s.
Scott Sumner
Mar 3 2018 at 12:01pm
HL, Thanks, I’ll do a post at MoneyIllusion.
Antischiff, You probably mean trade deficit, which can indeed be a good thing.
James, I agree that a nuclear war is very unlikely, but that’s because future world wars are very unlikely. My point is that in smaller wars there is no national security argument for steel tariffs. If there is another Iraq War, do you think America would be cut off from Canadian steel and aluminum? I don’t need to be an expert to understand this issue.
I would add that the “experts” do agree with me.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 3 2018 at 12:27pm
To complete my previous remark, this concept of “international indebtedness” must be taken with a big block of salt. It can be seen as a quasi-reflection of the Trumpian intuition that a country is a big individual.
Mike W
Mar 3 2018 at 1:03pm
Just as the steel industry is much smaller than most people assume, the cost of these tariffs will be smaller than many economists fear. It’s a tiny percentage of GDP.
Don’t you think Trump knows this (i.e., it’s been told to him by his advisors)? Is it possible that this move is part of some negotiating strategy, maybe with China but also maybe with our allies? Is a Scott Adams sort of take on Trump’s actions a possibility?
Mike W
Mar 3 2018 at 2:15pm
Hmmm…an example of “list journalism”?
http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/03/03/criticize-political-opponent-using-list-persuasion/#more-16761
Michael Byrnes
Mar 3 2018 at 2:29pm
A few years ago I learned from a blogger that an adverse supply shock would cause prices to rise, leading to higher measured inflation, but that it would be very bad for monetary policy to tighten in response (adding an adverse demand shock to a supply one just makes maters worse).
Am I right to infer from this comment that the magnitude of Trump’s adverse supply shock is not great enough to impact the business cycle?
Bob Murphy
Mar 3 2018 at 4:25pm
Hi Scott,
On this part:
“Most people assume that the US runs a persistent trade deficit. But if the trade deficit really were persistently negative, properly measured, then this time series should also be negative and falling.”
Strictly speaking, shouldn’t that be current account deficit?
In other words, even if I were someone who were going to worry about “bad” trade statistics, I would think a current account deficit meant Americans were living above their means, right?
Bob Murphy
Mar 3 2018 at 10:55pm
For those who are interested, at my blog I elaborated on Scott’s point #4 and the accompanying FRED chart.
Antischiff
Mar 4 2018 at 11:23am
Dr. Henderson and Sumner,
Yes, thanks for the correction. Sorry, yes, Friedman used to argue that trade deficits were a good thing, and his arguments fit my intuition, for what it’s worth.
Mike W
Mar 4 2018 at 12:33pm
I checked the Econlog archives and I didn’t see any “trade war” posts back in 2016 when the U.S. imposed some pretty hefty anti-dumping tariffs on imported steel.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steel-tariffs-create-a-double-edged-sword-1464740256
Why all the angst this time?
Quite Likely
Mar 4 2018 at 12:54pm
What’s going on with #4? Is the issue that you’d expect Americans to be selling off those foreign assets in order to pay for imports? I had assumed we were all on the same page about the American trade deficit being funded by foreign purchases of American assets. Are you maybe using a definition of “trade deficit” that basically counts that as an export? The problem with that is that the American real economy doesn’t benefit very much from further bidding up of asset prices. The idea is that reducing the trade deficit should reduce those asset flows proportionally, which should help deflate the asset bubble while getting more money flowing in the real economy.
I guess market monetarists are poorly equipped to see these issues because so much of the monetarist ideology is built around assuming away this whole problem with the belief that there’s no significant barrier between the real and financial economies.
David R Henderson
Mar 4 2018 at 1:56pm
@Mike W,
I checked the Econlog archives and I didn’t see any “trade war” posts back in 2016 when the U.S. imposed some pretty hefty anti-dumping tariffs on imported steel.
I can’t answer for others but I can answer for myself, so here goes.
First, touche. I hadn’t realized how little I had talked about it, but you’re right. I didn’t use the term trade war, but I did go after Democratic economist Paul Krugman here for favoring the Obama/Trump type measures.
You got me wondering why I didn’t dump on (pun intended) Obama more. Looking back, I think this was my reasoning. Go after him where he’s most dangerous and that is on health care, tax cartels, and, to some extent, foreign policy. Go after Trump where he’s most dangerous and that is on immigration, trade, and foreign policy. I think Trump is far more likely than Obama to start a trade war. From my reading of the record, Obama didn’t start a trade war. I think Trump quite likely–probability about 2 in 3–will. But if you think not, we might be able to fashion a bet. Are you interested in exploring that possibility?
By the way, in speeches in 2012 and later, I did go after Obama big time for his assault on U.S. buyers of tires. I should have posted on this: my bad.
Mark Bahner
Mar 4 2018 at 3:07pm
I tried to watch a Youtube video from Scott Adams about his take on Trump’s tariffs. I got bored. He seemed to be saying that Trump does lots of things people say he shouldn’t, and usually the things Trump does work. (But Adams only seem to be talking about things relating to getting elected.)
Can you summarize Scott Adams’ take regarding Trump’s actions on tariffs? (Or point me to somewhere Scott Adams summarizes his take in just a couple of minutes?)
Antischiff
Mar 4 2018 at 6:30pm
Here is Milton Friedman speaking very clearly on the benefits of running trade deficits, for those interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9STBcacDIM&t=348s
Mike W
Mar 4 2018 at 7:03pm
@Mark Bahner,
Can you summarize Scott Adams’ take regarding Trump’s actions on tariffs?
I wasn’t actually referring to Scott Adam’s take on Trump’s tariff actions specifically but rather his descriptions of Trump’s persuasion skills. Basically, Adams sees much of what Trump says and does as misdirection in the interest of some other objective. IMO, in the case of the tariff actions, that other objective has to do with domestic politics.
In Adam’s book, “Win Bigly”, (which seems to be a short version of Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow”) he describes Trump’s “weapons grade” persuasion skills.
Mike W
Mar 4 2018 at 7:43pm
@David Henderson,
From my reading of the record, Obama didn’t start a trade war. I think Trump quite likely–probability about 2 in 3–will. But if you think not, we might be able to fashion a bet. Are you interested in exploring that possibility?
I don’t believe Trump will start a trade war and I would be willing to bet on that. But, how would we define a “trade war” started by Trump? It is likely that the targets of the recent tariffs might retaliate but that goes on continually and doesn’t really rise to the level of “war.”
On our side, the metals industries have lobbied every president since at least Kennedy for tariff protections. Trump’s tariffs, as well as those of the two presidents before him, were initiated after the ITC found justification based on other countries’ dumping. Bush backed away and repealed his after the target countries appealed to the WTO. I don’t know if Obama’s from 2016 are still in effect. But that sort of move and counter-move is not really warfare.
On the other side, the Chinese have used retaliatory actions on trade to intimidate other countries that have irked them…e.g., the S. Korean THAAD issue and the Dalai Lama in Australia…as well as using trade to extract concessions from U.S. technology companies. How would we define a Trump-started trade war?
David R Henderson
Mar 4 2018 at 10:14pm
@Mike W,
How would we define a Trump-started trade war?
Good question. I’m not sure.
Mark
Mar 4 2018 at 11:18pm
Yes, of that there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind! To me, Donald Trump getting himself elected president has to be one of the greatest sales jobs of all time.
But this move is certainly 3-D. 4-D, or 4-D+ chess to me. He makes a few people who make steel and aluminum happy. But he also makes many more people who use steel and aluminum–and who also supported him–unhappy.
He also makes the country from whom we import the most steel and aluminum, Canada, unhappy. And Canada also apparently *buys* virtually the same amount of steel from us that we buy from them:
Steel trade, Canada and U.S.
Comments are closed.