Very well said. Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 4, 2018, at 14:27, Billy Rojas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Centroids: > The following short article was sent to me without attribution, either > for its author or publication source. However, the case that is made seems > entirely valid to me. For your information. > > Billy > > > PS > Recommended- > The New Protectionism, > Tim Lang and Colin Hines, 1993 > > > > > When U.S. president Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs of 25 percent > on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum Thursday, the world’s > commentariat broke out in a frenzy of condemnation. Trump was accused of > playing politics in a way that could “destabilize the global economy.” It was > said that Trump’s actions could “bring global trade growth to a halt” > (notwithstanding the fact that levels of global trade have already been > declining since 2011). His critics screamed “trade war.” Canadian and > European leaders immediately threatened retaliation. China didn’t, but > American China experts predicted that Beijing soon would. > It is likely that few, if any, of these experts have read the two detailed > Commerce Department reports that prompted the tariff decision, or the Defense > Department memo endorsing their findings. The goal of the tariffs proposed by > Commerce and endorsed by the president isn’t to punish Chinese dumping or put > an end to free trade. It’s to ensure that the United States retains any > domestic steel and aluminum production at all. Like President Barack Obama’s > controversial auto industry bailout in 2009, these tariffs are about keeping > an industry for the future, not about making it profitable today. > If China has merely expressed concern over Trump’s plans, it’s because China > is not really the target of the planned tariffs. China’s massive state-owned > steeland aluminum firms may ultimately lie behind the world’s glutted > markets, but Chinese products account for only a fraction of U.S. imports > (2.2 percent for steel and 10.6 percent for aluminum). The real problem is > that other countries—including allies like Canada and the European Union—have > responded to years of Chinese dumping by subsidizing their own industries and > imposing broad tariffs on Chinese steel. American antidumping measures have > traditionally been more narrowly focused. In a sense, Trump is only catching > up with what the rest of the world is doing already. > The simple fact is that the world produces much more steel and aluminumthan > it needs. A global shakeout is inevitable, and every country wants to make > sure that its own industries are the ones that survive. The only question is: > who will blink first? If one country has done a lot of blinking over the last > twenty years, it’s the United States, as the Commerce Department report amply > documents. Embracing a free-market approach, being reluctant to provide > subsidies, applying very selective tariffs and never even thinking about > nationalizing its strategic industries, the United States has consistently > ceded market share to its statist rivals overseas. The Trump tariffs bluntly > but effectively draw a line under twenty years of creeping retreat. > In its evaluation of the Commerce Department reports, the Defense Department > flatly concluded that “the systematic use of unfair trade practices to > intentionally erode our innovation and manufacturing industrial base poses a > risk to our national security” and agreed with the Commerce Department’s > conclusion “that imports of foreign steel and aluminum based on unfair > trading practices impair the national security.” Of the three > national-security responses offered by Commerce, DoD preferred the second > option, targeted tariffs, over the first (global tariffs) and third (global > quotas). But that’s a question of strategy, not principle. > The DoD is, obviously, a military organization, not an economic one. It is > “concerned about the negative impact on our key allies” of a broad, uniform > tariff. So the DoD prefers targeted tariffs on countries that, except for > South Korea, are not U.S. allies. But as the DoD memo admits, targeted > tariffs raise complicated enforcement challenges due to the international > transshipment of steel and other jurisdiction-shifting exercises. The > Commerce report estimated that targeted tariffs would have to be at least 53 > percent on steel and 23.6 percent on aluminum to be effective. Trump’s flat > tariffs of 25 percent and 10 percent would be easier to implement and harder > to avoid. > A single, global tariff also sends a simple, universally understood message > that this time, the United States is not going to blink first. This dispute > is not about the World Trade Organization, playing by the rules, commitment > to globalization or the much-hyped international liberal order. It’s about > the fact that some countries are going to have to give up their steel and > aluminum industries. The United States should not be one of them. Countries > that have historically made high steel and aluminum output a matter of > national policy should act responsibly to dismantle their bloated industrial > bases. Until they do (and there are no signs that they will), the U.S. > government should act to ensure a fair price for those few American producers > that remain. > > > > > -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
