Six Lies on Trade
President Donald Trump listens as others speak during a working lunch with
governors in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Thursday, June 21, 2018,
in Washington, DC.
President Trump listens as others speak during a working lunch with governors
in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Thursday, June 21, 2018, in
Washington, DC.
Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post via Getty Images
By Dean Baker, Truthout Published July 9, 2018
After 500 days of Donald Trump’s presidency, it is clear that any relationship
between his statements and the truth are purely coincidental. He even boasts
about his lack of interest in the truth, touting the fact that he had no idea
what our trade deficit was with Canada when he confronted Canadian Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau over our “$100 billion trade deficit.” (The actual
figure is around $20 billion.)
But Donald Trump’s contempt for the truth should not cause the rest of us to
become liars also. In fact, it is more important than ever that progressives
ground arguments in reality.
This is especially the case with trade, where lying was standard fare long
before Donald Trump entered politics. Here are six common lies which deserve
major pushback any time they appear.
1. Everyone gains from trade.
This is not even the textbook story. The textbook tells us there are winners
and losers. In the standard story, the winners gain more than the losers lose.
This means that the winners could compensate the losers so that everyone is
better off. In the real world, this compensation never takes place, so the
losers just lose.
If this is hard to understand, suppose we arranged for 300,000 highly qualified
doctors from other countries to start practicing in the United States. This
influx would probably lower our doctors’ pay by around $100,000 a year each to
roughly European levels. This would save us close to $100 billion annually
($700 per family) on health care costs. That’s a big gain to the rest of us,
but a big loss to US doctors. That’s basically the story of trade, but the
competition has been for manufacturing workers.
2. The loss of manufacturing jobs was due to productivity growth, not trade.
This is a classic economist’s sleight of hand. Manufacturing productivity
typically increases at the rate of 2-3 percent annually. (It has been much
slower in the last dozen years.) This is also roughly the rate of growth of
demand, which means that increased demand for goods typically offset the jobs
lost to productivity growth.
The data are clear. In the three decades from December 1970 to December 2000,
manufacturing employment only fell by 100,000, less than 1 percent. By
contrast, we lost more than 3.4 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2007
(before the crash), which was more than 20 percent of total employment.
This was due to the explosion of the trade deficit in these years, which peaked
at almost 6 percent of GDP in 2005 and 2006. That would be equal to $1.2
trillion annually in today’s economy. There were benefits from getting cheap
imports, but it is incredibly dishonest not to acknowledge the enormous job
loss associated with the expansion of the trade deficit in those years.
And of course, over the last 50 years, many more manufacturing jobs were lost
to productivity than trade. This is true, but completely irrelevant.
3. It is inevitable that less-educated workers lose jobs to the developing
world.
This is a great example where the classism of our elites obstructs clear
thinking. It is absolutely true that there are hundreds of millions of people
in the developing world who are willing to work in factories at a fraction of
the wages that US manufacturing workers receive. This means that opening to
trade puts downward pressure on the wages of US manufacturing workers, and
less-educated workers more generally, as they either accept large pay cuts or
lose their jobs.
The complication is that there are also tens of millions of very smart
hard-working people in the developing world who would be happy to work in the
United States as doctors, dentists, lawyers or as other highly paid
professionals at a fraction of the pay of our professionals. They could train
to our standards and learn English where necessary. This would drive down the
salary in highly paid professions, and thereby lead to savings to consumers,
but we don’t allow it. Trade deals have been about lowering the pay of
less-educated workers, while highly paid professionals continue to enjoy
protection from international competition.
Donate
Don't trust corporate media? Neither do we.
Make a monthly tax-deductible donation to Truthout and support accurate,
independent journalism.
4. Trade deficits don’t cost jobs.
It is very popular among pundits to claim that trade deficits don’t cost jobs
by pointing to our current 3.8 percent unemployment rate, even as the deficit
is on a course to exceed $600 billion (3 percent of GDP) this year. While it is
true that a trade deficit does not necessarily cost jobs, in a period where we
are below full employment, a $100 billion increase in the trade deficit reduces
demand and employment in the same way that a $100 billion reduction in
investment would reduce demand and employment.
The large trade deficit in the last decade was certainly a big factor in the
weak labor market recovery from the 2001 recession. We eventually filled the
demand gap from the trade deficit with the demand generated by the housing
bubble. This is hardly a good model for the future.
5. It is important that other countries respect “our” intellectual property.
This is a line that has come up repeatedly in Trump’s trade war with China. We
have been told that we have an interest in making China pay for the
intellectual property of US corporations that it allegedly steals.
Okay, it is clear that Pfizer has an interest in having its drug patents
respected by China, as does Microsoft with its software copyrights and patents.
But what about the vast majority of us who don’t own lots of stock in these or
other companies that have intellectual property claims at risk?
The standard trade theory tells us that if China and other countries have to
pay less money to Pfizer and Microsoft due to patent and copyright monopolies,
they have more money to spend on other items we produce. In other words, the
money they pay to these companies increases the trade deficit in other areas.
We do have to support innovation, but that is a separate issue. There are far
more efficient mechanisms than patent and copyright monopolies for financing
innovation in the 21st century.
6. The developing world needed to kill US manufacturing to allow people to
escape poverty.
Hundreds of millions of people in the developing world have seen huge
improvements in living standards over the last three decades, especially in
China. These people went from living near or below poverty levels to enjoying
middle-class living standards.
This is indeed a great story, but it is not true that this rise in living
standards had to come at the expense of manufacturing workers in the United
States and other wealthy countries. In the 1990s, the countries of East Asia
(the big success stories) had even more rapid growth than they did in the last
decade. This was a period in which they were running large trade deficits, with
the important exception of China, which had nearly balanced trade.
In principle, there is no reason these countries could not have continued on a
path where domestic demand fueled growth and was funded by foreign investment
flows. However, the East Asian financial crisis hit in 1997. The United States
led the bailout organized by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
essentially required that these countries run large trade surpluses as a
condition of getting aid.
The shift from running trade deficits to running trade surpluses was a
requirement of the IMF, not a law of economic development. If these countries
were allowed to continue to be importers of foreign investment (the standard
textbook model), and sustained the 1990s growth path, they would be far richer
today. In fact, countries like South Korea and Malaysia would now be richer
than the United States on a per person basis.
In short, it is simply not true that the pain to factory workers, who lost
their jobs in the United States, was somehow a necessary condition for hundreds
of millions of people in the developing world to escape poverty. Other paths
would have allowed for even more rapid growth in these countries.
Getting to a Reality-Based Trade Policy
It seems likely that Trump’s trade war will go down in flames when Trump
eventually loses interest and goes back to the hunt for President Obama’s
Kenyan birth certificate. His reckless actions deserve all the ridicule and
contempt they have received.
However, we should not go back to a trade policy that was based on lies. We
need a trade policy that is about raising the living standards of working
people in the United States and the developing world, not just giving all the
money to the rich.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Dean Baker
Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and senior economist at the Center for Economic
and Policy Research in Washington, DC, which he cofounded. He previously worked
as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant
professor at Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a
member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.
More by this author…
Related
Economy & Labor
Republicans Finally Turn on Trump’s Trade War, but Will They Confront Him?
Orrin Hatch, Bob Corker and others are enraged by Donald Trump’s destructive
trade war.
by Heather Digby Parton, Salon July 5, 2018
Economy & Labor
Trade: It’s About Class, Not Country
This is not a story of free trade.
by Dean Baker, Truthout June 25, 2018
Economy & Labor
How Donald Trump’s Trade Wars Could Lead to a Great Depression
Trump's actions will have unexpected global consequences.
by Nomi Prins, TomDispatch June 21, 2018
Subscribe Truthout's Latest
Our daily email newsletter will keep you up to date.
Support Independent Journalism
Truthout is a nonprofit and depends on your financial support.
Donate
Follow @truthout
Follow us for first access to the latest news and analysis.
A white lower-case t on a black background
About Us
Staff
Contact Us
Jobs
Report an Issue
Submission Guidelines
Privacy Policy
©2018 Truthout
^ Back to Top
