© 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.

ronald.fricke
Jan 21, 2019

This is Trump's Economy, Two Years In

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/politics/trump-economy-second-anniversary/index.html

"This is Trump's Economy, Two Years In" by Lydia DePillis opens up talking about how economic policy decisions of the first half of his term accelerated growth in 2018 but that momentum is slowly decreasing as the country moves forward. His policy "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017" gave stock buybacks to shareholders and the tax cuts added .8% to gross domestic product in 2018. This tax incentive is a form of mercantilism policy and persuades American Businesses to stay in the US rather than go to foreign nations. While many countries struggled in the economic sphere, the US did not and it was because of these policies. President Trump's tariffs have benefited US steel producers while the China, Canada, and European Union has suffered. This connects to economic nationalism which is an attempt to create, bolster, and protect national economies in the context of world markets. President Trump has been acting in an America First mindset and his policies are attempting to persuade US businesses to use US products.


While there was good to these policies, President Trump's Trade Policies has caused a roller coaster in international markets. The costs of tariffs due to President Trump's economic policy applies to nearly $300 billion in US imports and oxford economics estimates that the tariffs shaved .1-.2% off of growth in 2018. It is also important to note that small business CEOs have stated that tariffs have had a negative impact, while only 4% have said they have benefited from them. The concept of tariffs applies to mercantilism because in this school of thought, the government is attempting to sustain its wealth and power rather than let it go to other countries and tries to maximize exports and minimize imports. Lastly, under President trump's tenure, foreign direct investment in the US dropped in 2017 which goes to show that foreign business are less interested in building factories and buying companies in the United States. This connects to mercantilism also because in this school of thought, you only engage in international trade if the trade achieves the best interests of the respective states in terms of wealth and power. And due to US policies, this form of international trade does not benefit them. This concept can also be linked to the mercantilism policy of investment restrictions which is restricting foreign ownership of national interests.

0 comments0 replies
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.