"We can begin by noting that when the United States goes against international institutions and deals, for example, by imposing tariffs that violate World Trade Organization or other international agreements, aside from immediate negative economic effects, we give other countries good reason to mistrust the value of our word and to engage in similar behavior themselves. The calculus is that much worse because the United States had the overwhelmingly dominant role in setting up such institutions as the WTO in the first place. We did it because such international agreements and institutions are in our national interest."
"Focusing on the bilateral balance is a waste of time. Regardless what happens with China, the overall U.S. trade deficit will rise this year as a result of the Republican tax cuts, enacted at a time when the economy is already producing at the limit of its capacity."
"Similarly unmoored from both economic and legal logic are the tariffs that Trump has imposed on imports of steel and aluminum, and threatens to impose on automobiles and other goods. With respect to legal criteria, the national security justification that he has invoked is flimsy in the extreme and will likely inspire other countries to retaliate. With respect to economic criteria, the beneficiaries in the steel industry, for example, are vastly outnumbered by those who will be hurt because they use steel as inputs, they consume the final product, or they produce export goods that will be hit by the repercussions, such as farmers."
"It is easier to say what the Trump approach is not. It is not the deliberate or competent application of a coherent strategy informed by a clear set of American policy objectives, an understanding of the incentives of the other side, or an appreciation of the implications that impulsive tweets can have for the global system over the long term or even for the next move in the tactical game in the short term."
No comments:
Post a Comment