You will be redirected to your destination in 20 seconds.
Protectionism rising?
Protectionist sentiment appears to be rising. From the standpoint of protecting your nation’s economic turf, protectionism might feel good. But a global trade war could stem from rising protectionism.
We have organizations in place to monitor trade agreements and resolve disputes like the World Trade Organization. But nations can invoke protectionist measures without violating free trade agreements.
The lesson for individual nations who invoke harsh protectionist measures can be that while imports decline, exports decline as well, hurting your GDP. From a broader view, nationalism intensifies - undermining the global cooperation needed to grease to markets sorely in need of working efficiently again.
That could stifle a global recovery - since most nations are tied closely together by trade. Plus invoking policies to shut other nations out of trade is hard to undo when done. And it can spur retaliation among trading partners.
The poster child for the negatives of protectionism is the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs on 20,000 items during the Great Depression. You can research that for yourself if you like.
A story in the Financial Times yesterday outlined the new Buy China plan that is part of Chinese recovery efforts:
“In an edict released jointly by nine government departments, Beijing said government procurement must use only Chinese products or services unless they were not available within the country or could not be bought on reasonable commercial or legal terms.”
The Christian Science Monitor had a quote in its recent Buy China story that suggested Chinese exporters have taken such a hit in foreign markets that protectionist pressure is coming from Chinese workers who see protectionist efforts happening in other nations:
“Pressure for protectionist measures is building in China, says Mr. Xiang (Songzuo, an independent economist), but it is not coming from workers fearing for their jobs, as is generally the case in Western countries.
Instead, he says, “many companies, mainly private exporters, are complaining to the government because they are losing their foreign markets … and they need more domestic demand. They see other countries’ stimulus packages encouraging firms to buy local and hire local workers, and they ask why the Chinese government does not have a similar policy.”"
The move is an about face for China, which had spoken out earlier this year against any efforts to protect national manufacturers from outside competition.
Our own $787 billion stimulus plan in the U.S., signed into law in February, favors domestic steel and iron and other items for stimulus projects. So we can’t really point a finger at China unless we want to look back at the one pointing at ourselves.
Another recent story, “Beijing orders ‘Buy China’ for stimulus projects” from the Associated Press reports that the Buy China plan may not be so different from how the country currently operates:
“The American Embassy in Beijing, in a written response to questions, noted that Chinese government agencies already are required by law to buy domestically made goods and services whenever possible. The embassy did not immediately answer a question about whether Washington might challenge the order.”
That story also reports that some companies with Chinese factories feel they are being excluded from stimulus financed projects in Europe.
And finally, at the end of a Reuters protectionism story “Group warns Buy American measures threaten US jobs,” we find our neighbor to the north, Canada, threatening to retaliate to protectionist U.S. measures:
“Canadian mayors have threatened to retaliate by shutting out American suppliers from the $15 billion worth of business they currently do with Canadian municipalities, (Jay)Myers, (president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters) noted.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to offer to negotiate a broader procurement arrangement, and provincial premiers are on board, Myers said.
“If the leaders of the world’s two largest trading partners cannot avoid … job losses or restrictions on trade, then heaven only help the rest of the world in trying to avoid falling into the same spiral of protectionism,” Myers said.”
Finally, in this newsroom Thomas Russell recently wrote a column about efforts by the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, also known as AMTAC, to create a Border Tax Equity Act to impose a tax on imported goods.
Such a tax would be created to counter value added taxes that are added to imports into other nations.
William commented:
Smoot-Hawley in 1930 was America shooting itself in the foot. At that time the USA ran the world's largest trade surplus so protectionism and the following trade war no doubt made the depression worst for America.
Fast forward to Smoot-Hawley 2010 and the picture has reversed itself. How the world's largest importer the US would find itself in a favorable position to create both jobs and inflation (USD, the love of Wall St. will tumble) which would support housing and transfer wealth from the fifth to the second and third qunitle of wage earners.
This would reblance trade, abet at a lower level, and move America from a consumer to producer orientation.
BUY AMERICAN
jj commented:
A trade war is highly unlikely. More important it is not a bad thing for American jobs. The reason is that the world is already not buying our stuff. We have a trade deficit about the size of the stimulus package. Countries that have staked their economic well being on exports to the United States from outsourced American jobs risk getting slaughtered, not us. Ending foreign trade would result in injecting a stimulus package into our economy each and every year without taxes or borrowing.
Trade protection has become the boogieman that is going to get us if free trade is abandoned. But fear not. Like most boogiemen this one is a lot less scary when reality replaces myth.
The history of US trade protection has been written by advocates of free trade and surprise, surprise protection comes out as a bad thing. Wrong! According to the free trader story the world collapsed because the US introduced the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930.
But blaming Smoot-Hawley for the Great Depression is a misreading of history. Smoot-Hawley was not a shift to protection but more of the same. At the time it was proposed the US was already the world’s most trade protectionist nation and had been for more than a hundred very prosperous years. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs were not the highest tariffs the US ever had. Nor did they last very long. Passed in the summer of 1930 they became effective the following year and began to be reduced after 1932 by the Roosevelt administration. When the Depression got worse in 1937 tariffs were already back to the pre Smoot-Hawley levels. While trade did decline by two-thirds it was two-thirds of a small number. Trade declined from 6 percent of GNP to 2 percent while the nation remained a net exporter.
During that long period of trade protection, more than a hundred years, contrary to the myths of free traders, the US had higher real wages, lower prices, and more innovation than the rest of the world. During that long period of protection the US ascended to the economic high from which it has descended during a short period of free trade.
Fear not. Buy American.






















