© 2018 by Robert Person.  The views expressed on this website are my own and do not represent the official policy of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.

david.mitchell2
Feb 12, 2019

Do Americans lose from a TPP that doesn't include the US?

Article found at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/31/cptpp-american-farmers-set-for-pain-as-pacific-trade-deal-kicks-in.html.


As mentioned in the readings for tomorrow’s lesson, the other 11 signatories to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) have moved forward on the deal, even without US participation. The Trump Administration, of course, withdrew the United States only three days after taking office in 2017. The new trade deal is known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The above article is about how the agreement will slash tariffs among the 11 nations, making the goods of non-CPTPP members, such as the US, pricier and less competitive in those markets. The central argument is that American beef and wheat exports, in particular, are expected to suffer. Their evidence is that given Japan is the top market for US beef, Australia’s products will now assume that spot because foreign beef tariffs in Japan will be cut by 27.5 percent for Australian producers, as both countries as signatories to the CPTPP. Likewise, American wheat will face a $14 per metric ton resale price disadvantage to Australia and Canada. These two industries point to the fact that the US should not have withdrawn from the deal, as a country’s real income would have increased and been better off as a result.

This article is a case in point in one of the central themes in this block: that all trade deals create “winners” and “losers.” President Trump in his decision to withdraw the US from the TPP was more concerned with the losses of the deal, as opposed to the substantial merits. He repeatedly argued that the deal would have damaged US manufacturing, added to the trade deficit and sent American jobs overseas. He clearly does not account for the comparative advantage aspect of free trade—that is, the fact that each country involved in a free trade deal gains by exporting the good in which it has a comparative advantage and by importing the good in which it has a comparative disadvantage. This, in turn, leads to specialization and an increased returns to scale from larger markets. The US, with its abundance in land and labor, has a comparative advantage in the wheat and beef industries. In other words, as export-oriented sectors, they both gain from trade. Imported-oriented sectors, on the other hand, are expected to rely intensively on society’s scare factor and therefore lose from trade. The concept of comparative advantage helps illustrates just how misguided President Trump’s decision to withdraw was.

1 comment0 replies
kenneth.englert
Feb 12, 2019

I agree with your analysis and particularly like the final quote in the article by Steve Okun, where he says, "the world is moving forward without us." I think President Trump missed out on this deal and American businesses will suffer. Not only does the U.S. lose the benefits of its comparative advantage, but it is quickly being left behind as other institutions and states establish their own trade deals to compensate for this.

0
New Posts
  • christopher.chaulk
    May 10, 2019

    Sanctions Can't Spark Regime Change

    Discussion 
    In his article for Foreign Affairs David Cohen talks about the Trump administration's policy towards sanctions. He talks about how the conditional sanctions the Trump administrations has placed on Iran and now Venezuela will be ineffective because the changes the administration is trying to coerce will essentially mean regime change for the two nations. Cohen goes on to state that these will be ultimately ineffective because the relative cost of the sanctions is lower than the cost of losing power. This means that the leaders of Iran and Venezuela are more willing to bear the pain of the sanctions than lose the regime. This goes along with the lesson we had on sanctions in a couple of ways. First we learned that sanctions are used either as a method of deterrence or coercion. This means that the sanctions inflict financial and economic pain to make the target of the sanctions take or not take an action. These sanctions are meant to cause political changes that will in essence mean a change of regime which is why they will fail. They are effective in causing pain; however, there is not enough sanctions in the world to make it worth losing power. Article link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2019-04-29/sanctions-cant-spark-regime-change
  • william.moorhead
    May 10, 2019

    Trump Increases China Tariffs as Trade Deal Hangs in the Balance

    Discussion 
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/china-trade-tariffs.html Just before a scheduled round of trade negotiations began on Friday, President Trump announced that he was still going to levy additional tariffs on Chinese imports valued at approximately $250 billion. President Trump claimed that these tariffs would bring billions of dollars back to US manufacturers, but the main focus seems to be inflicting pain on China, as opposed to bringing prosperity to the US. China and the US have not been able to reach an agreement that would minimize or end outright the "trade war" between the two, which stems from the Trump Administration's belief that China is not doing all it can to protect American investments and intellectual property in China, as well as the belief that a large trade deficit with China is inherently bad. The Trump Administration's use of tariffs as a negotiating tool is inelegant, but effective. Unilateral tariffs immediately affect the Chinese export industry, whose products become less competitive in US markets. While this inflicts pain on Chinese exports, whose largest market is the US, it also affects US consumers, who have to pay higher costs for consumer goods. Additionally, because China retaliates with target tariffs (on politically-relevant goods like Kentucky Bourbon and soybeans from the Heartland), US exporters are equally hurt by the trade war. The only immediate winner is the US, who collects revenue from the applied tariffs; however, long-term, US domestic industry should improve, as they will become more competitive when Chinese imports are more expensive. Slowly, we are starting to see this happen: Dan DiMicco, the chairman of a lobby group "Coalition for a Prosperous America," explained that American manufacturing is already experiencing gains in their domestic market shares.
  • christopher.papa
    May 10, 2019

    Illegal Immigration and Migration

    Discussion 
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/8/feds-release-168k-illegal-immigrant-family-members/ In Stephen Dinan's article in the Washington Times, he explains the unforeseen immigration due to illegal border crossings. ICE border patrol has released 168,000 illegal immigrant family members this fiscal year, and the number is expected to increase as the border situation increases in volatility (Dinan). Dinan reports that 87% of families in this new pilot program skip their court hearings, and with an ill-equipted government to track them down judges deport them in absentia (Dinan). Dinan argues that this increase in illegal immigration in family units is caused by a 2015 court ruling that stated parents who travel with children must be released in 20 days. Since this is too little time try them in court, the families are set free (Dinan). This article is very relevant to this block in IPE as it highlights a crucial phase that the world is going through. As policies towards free and open borders begin to gain more and more traction, we can expect the number of border crossings into the country to continue. As we talked in class, this may actually be a good thing for the economy, as low skill labor is substituted due to a higher rate of college attenuation and graduation. Dinan says that most migrants interviewed are not criminals, they are just seeking jobs, and know that if they bring children they will find asylum in the US (Dinan). One of the unintended consequences is that some of these migrants are being used to smuggle drugs and weapons into the country, and in some extreme cases, children are being sold to impersonate children of felons migrants of south american countries to gain access with ease. As globalization brings countries closer together and as the trend for free an open borders continues incentivizing cheap labor, it will be interesting to see the effects of these policies 10-15 years in time.