Archive for the ‘Trade and Immigration’ Category
Is the U.S. Trade Representative a Closet Free Trader?
Not to get him in trouble with his boss, but U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has been sounding like a free trader lately. I’m beginning to think Ambassador Kirk consumes the analyses we produce over here at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. Well, let me rephrase: that he consumes the meat of our analyses, but still hides the vegetables under the picked-over potatoes.
Still, that’s pretty commendable for a Washington policymaker.
Just the other day, Ambassador Kirk lamented how policymakers do a poor job selling trade agreements to a skeptical public. Inside U.S. Trade [$] paraphrased Kirk as saying:
[P]oliticians must ‘talk about trade differently’ and demonstrate how trade policy is directly responsible for sustaining economic growth and creating jobs. If the focus is only on how trade deals will improve supply chains for businesses, for instance, that is not enough to build the base for support for trade deals.
That is a sound criticism. The typical, mercantilist arguments that tout the benefits of exports and rationalize imports as necessary evils are foolish and self-defeating—particularly in a country that will run trade deficits into the distant future as its economy continues to grow and attract greater amounts of foreign investment. The freedom to engage in commerce with whom and how one chooses, and the impact of import competition are the real benefits of freer trade.
Like some others in town, we at Cato advocate free trade. But unlike most, we advocate free trade here in the United States—not just over there in foreign countries. Free trade requires more than getting other governments to eliminate their barriers to U.S. exports; it requires getting the U.S. government to eliminate its barriers to U.S. imports from abroad. The latter is the real objective of free trade advocacy and the well-spring of most of its benefits.
But the economic benefits of imports rarely make the Washington “free trade advocate’s” Top-10 list of talking points, nor do they officially register in the minds of trade negotiators, whose chief aims are to secure for their exporters the greatest possible access to foreign markets, while simultaneously conceding to foreigners as little access as possible to the domestic market. “Import” is a four-letter word in the Washington trade policy community.
That’s why Ambassador Kirk’s recent comments have me thinking: epiphany?
In a statement responding to the WTO Appellate Body ruling last week that China’s export restrictions on nine raw materials were not in conformity with that country’s WTO commitments, Ambassador Kirk made the point that U.S. firms that use those raw materials will be better able to compete once those restrictions are lifted.
Today’s decision ensures that core manufacturing industries in this country can get the materials they need to produce and compete on a level playing field.
The USTR had previously made the following point:
These raw material inputs are used to make many processed products in a number of primary manufacturing industries, including steel, aluminum and various chemical industries. These products, in turn become essential components in even more numerous downstream products.
Technically, Ambassador Kirk is not engaging in profanity—he doesn’t use the word import. But his argument against Chinese export restrictions is just as applicable to U.S. import restrictions. Removing restrictions—whether the export variety imposed by foreign governments or the import variety imposed by our own—reduces input prices, lowers domestic production costs, enables more competitive final-goods pricing and, thus, greater profits for U.S.-based producers.
So let’s take Ambassador Kirk’s sound logic and see if it might apply elsewhere in the realm of U.S. trade policy. If the U.S. government thought it worthwhile to take China to the WTO over the restrictions it imposes on raw material exports because those restrictions hurt U.S. producers, then why does the same U.S. government impose its own restrictions on imports of some of the very same raw materials? That’s right. The United States maintains antidumping duties on magnesium, silicon metal, and coke (all raw materials subject to Chinese export restrictions).
If Ambassador Kirk ate the vegetables as well as the meat of Cato’s trade policy analyses, he would recognize that his logic provides a compelling case for antidumping reforms, such as one requiring the administering authorities to consider the economic impact of antidumping measures on producers in downstream industries, such as magnesium-cast automobile parts producers, manufacturers of silicones used in solar panels, and even steel producers, who require coke for their blast furnaces.
We will know that the ambassador has eaten his free-trade vegetables when he starts sounding like former USTR Robert Zoellick who once hoped for the Doha Round of trade negotiations that it would “[T]urn every corner store in America into a duty-free shop.”
Cardless National ID and the E-Verify Rebellion
New Hampshire was the state where the “REAL ID rebellion” got its start. There, in 2006, Rep. Neal Kurk (R-Weare) took to the floor of the New Hampshire House to talk about his principled opposition to the federal national ID law.
In stirring words, Kurk urged his colleagues to overturn a committee recommendation that no action should be taken on his bill to have New Hampshire reject REAL ID. The House went on to pass his bill and half the states in the nation soon followed suit.
Now a bill pending in the New Hampshire House responds to a more insidious version of the federal government’s national ID plans: E-Verify.
E-Verify is a federal background check system that its proponents intend to be used on every person seeking work in the United States. Once in place, E-Verify would expand to new uses, giving the federal government direct regulatory control of all Americans’ lives through control of proof of identity. It’s being fitted to operate using only databases, so I’ve been referring to it as a “cardless national ID.”
New Hampshire Rep. Seth Cohn (R-Merrimack 6) has introduced a bill to prevent his state from contributing New Hampshirites personal data to the E-Verify system. HB 1549 would not only prohibit the state from allowing citizens’ personal data to be used in E-Verify. It would prohibit the state from requiring employers to participate in the E-Verify system.
It’s an appropriate response to the Department of Homeland Security’s latest move. You see, a branch of E-Verify is called the “RIDE” program. That stands for “Records and Information from Department of Motor Vehicles for E-Verify” (Yeah, it’s a stretch…) Basically, RIDE is the conduit through which the states are going to start passing data to the federal government, weaving together that national ID outside of the REAL ID Act.
In their desire to bring illegal immigration under control, a lot of people have convinced themselves over many years that growing the federal government and conscripting businesses into “internal enforcement” of immigration law was the way to go. Unfortunately, that route costs a lot of money, it bloats the federal government, and it requires a national ID system, which is a threat to liberty that Americans reject. My paper, “Franz Kafka’s Solution to Illegal Immigration,” goes through many of the details.
Is this the beginning of the E-Verify rebellion? It’s a welcome addition to the national debate from the “Live Free or Die” state.
Agriculture and Trade Links
- A very good editorial on Bloomberg.com on farm subsidies, and why the “let’s swap direct payments for crop insurance” proposal is a bad deal for taxpayers.
- American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman isn’t exactly a poster child for the farm program reform movement, but here he writes something I didn’t think would ever flow from his pen: “Not only would ["shallow loss"] programs be a nightmare for local Farm Service Agency offices to administer, but farmers would have the ability to cherry-pick which program works best for them. Because of distortions in price, we’d have a system of farmers deciding what to produce based on government payments rather than market signals.” [emphasis added] Uh, ok, but doesn’t that happen already, Mr Stallman?
- I’m not quite sure the LA Times gets the concept of federalism.
- United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk complains that “countries need to do a better job of explaining the benefits of trade in order to help sell ambitious trade deals to a skeptical public” [$]. I must have missed the part when Obama gave a detailed, principled endorsement of free trade in his SOTU address last week. Or, you know, ever.
The President’s Heroics and Other Tall Tales about the Auto Industry
Newt Gingrich defeated communism, someone hacked Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account, and President Obama saved the U.S. automobile industry. Grandiosity, denial, and revisionism are all noted indulgences of the political breed. That’s why we should always be skeptical of their words and pity the partisan lemmings who mindlessly parrot their rhetoric.
In his SOTU speech last night, the president claimed credit for rescuing the auto industry:
On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.
This is a claim that is likely to be repeated as the president campaigns across the country this year, so it may be worthwhile to examine its merits. (Who knows, maybe an effective debate moderator or Sunday news show host might find his way to asking the right questions of the president or members of his administration.)
Closer analysis reveals that President Obama (enabled by President Bush’s complicity) bailed out specific stakeholders at two auto companies at great cost to U.S. taxpayers and at great expense to important U.S. institutions.
The assertion – or implication – that he saved the auto industry is bogus. The auto industry was never on the verge of collapse. GM and Chrysler were in deep trouble, but Ford, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Kia, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes Benz (to name some U.S. producers) were fine. Yes, in 2008-2009 the economy was in recession and automobile demand had tanked. The companies that had been the most profligate, the most reckless, and the least disciplined were exposed, but talk of industry collapse was the product of a Detroit public relations campaign that featured the claim that 2 to 3 million jobs could be lost if the government didn’t funnel huge sums of cash to the Big Three. (Details here.)
I have shouted from the rooftops about this issue for over three years. So rather than present all the facts and reconstruct all the arguments, let me economize with reference to this congressional testimony, given seven month ago. It pretty well sums up everything that’s wrong or misleading about the president’s narrative.
As I wrote last year:
The objection to the auto bailout was not that the federal government wouldn’t be able to marshal adequate resources to help GM. The most serious concerns were about the consequences of that intervention — the undermining of the rule of law, the property confiscations, the politically driven decisions and the distortion of market signals.
Any verdict on the auto bailouts must take into account, among other things, the illegal diversion of TARP funds, the forced transfer of assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners and their union; the higher-risk premiums consequently built into U.S. corporate debt; the costs of denying Ford and the other more worthy automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the autoworkers’ union, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about policy that pervades the business environment to this day.
GM’s recent profits speak only to the fact that politicians committed more than $50 billion to the task of rescuing those companies and the United Auto Workers. With debts expunged, cash infused, inefficiencies severed, ownership reconstituted, sales rebates underwritten and political obstacles steamrolled — all in the midst of a recovery in U.S. auto demand — only the most incompetent operations could fail to make profits.
But taxpayers are still short at least $10 billion to $20 billion (depending on the price that the government’s 500 million shares of GM will fetch), and there is still significant overcapacity in the auto industry.
The administration should divest as soon as possible, without regard to the stock price. Keeping the government’s tentacles around a large firm in an important industry will keep the door open wider to industrial policy and will deter market-driven decision-making throughout the industry, possibly keeping the brakes on the recovery. Yes, there will be a significant loss to taxpayers. But the right lesson to learn from this chapter in history is that government interventions carry real economic costs — only some of which are readily measurable.
SOTU and Trade: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
President Obama’s State of the Union address last night was, in my opinion, pretty awful (although James Pethokoukis at the American Enterprise Institute thinks it could have been worse). I know SOTUs are political theater at its worst, and I watch them always with something not unlike disgust, but I found almost nothing to like in the substance last night. The electioneering, partisan, self-aggrandizing tone didn’t help.
Let me turn specifically to trade policy, which was more thoroughly covered last night than in recent SOTUs. In an election year, and from a president who is ambivalent (at best) on trade, a trade-heavy speech is not always a good thing: trade policy can get caught up in broader political arguments about inequality, unemployment and economic growth. And rarely does that combination work well for those of us who want and promote free trade between people regardless of the political borders behind which those people happen to live.
But first, the Good news from last night’s speech. President Obama did make a passing and veiled reference to the need for Congress to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia, necessary for the United States to treat Russia as any other member of the World Trade Organization when it joins the body later this year (i.e., allowing Americans to access Russian goods and services more readily). And at least he painted the recent passage of the trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama as a positive development, albeit on mercantilist grounds (more on this later).
The Bad? The president said precisely nothing about the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations currently underway with nine other Asia-Pacific countries (with Canada, Mexico and Japan interested in joining in the future). The TPP is supposedly the crowning achievement of his administration’s trade efforts and a deal that he was itching to complete in 2012. What does it say about his priorities that it warrants not a mention in his main speech of the year? Maybe his political supporters in organized labor aren’t buying this “21st century trade agreement” stuff any more than I am and he sees merit in keeping it quiet. But that then raises worrying questions about the ability of the negotiations to be completed on schedule if they don’t have full-throated political support at the highest level. The president made no mention of the World Trade Organization or its struggling Doha round of trade liberalization negotiations, either, although maybe there he is simply showing acceptance of the round’s (near) death, an assessment he would share with most trade watchers.
And the Ugly? Once again the president displays no appreciation for the true benefits of free trade – the benefits from specialization and exchange. They include the economic benefits that come from increased competition, and from access to cheaper and more variable goods and services for Americans. From his silly (and, I suspect, futile) goal to “double exports in five years” to his rhetoric about how America can “win” if the playing field is level (what does “winning” mean in that context anyway?), the speech was peppered with nationalistic, misguided and quite frankly inflammatory rhetoric that will not help trade relations – let alone lead to enhanced trading opportunities for Americans – one bit. Creating yet another government agency, this time to “investigat[e] unfair trade practices in countries like China”, will just add to tensions. Claiming the tires debacle as a model of trade enforcement success is yet another example of how the concept of unintended consequences is apparently lost on this president.
Matthew Yglesias has some excellent things to say on the mercantilist nonsense in Obama’s message, and the ill-conceived manufacturing fetish he conveyed. And Obama managed to combine both economic illiterate concepts when wailing about the unfairness of having to compete with “foreign manufacturers [who] have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.” (He then, inevitably, went on to include all sorts of subsidies or tax breaks that he would like to extend to certain American firms/industries – Chris Edwards has amply covered the tax stuff here). Overall, I give this speech a “D” on trade. Must try harder.
President Obama Could Improve Relations with China at the Stroke of His Pen
When China joined the WTO in December 2001, one of the many terms it agreed to was to allow the United States to continue to treat it as a “non-market economy“ under U.S. antidumping law for a period of 15 years. China has regretted that concession ever since, and there are precious few gestures that would win more goodwill from the Chinese government than a decision by President Obama to graduate China to market economy status now.
A ruling last month from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit making it illegal to apply the U.S. Countervailing Duty Law (anti-subsidy law) to imports from non-market economies gives the president the perfect opening to make the change now. From the perspective of a free trader, that solution is far from ideal: it preserves domestic industries’ access to the antidumping law and countervailing duty laws, both of which produce egregiously punitive duties on imports and are ripe for serious reform or outright repeal.
But the benefit of granting market economy status to China now is that it will help slow, and likely reverse the deterioration in bilateral economic relations. And that would be an important benefit for all of us.
At the very beginning of the Obama administration, Scott Lincicome and I urged the new president to consider more than just the litany of gripes so often heard at home and to recognize that China has its own justifiable concerns about U.S. policy:
The time has come to seriously consider carrots and not just sticks—particularly since the pain from the sticks is not limited to its intended targets, but is felt in the United States and in other countries, given the transnational nature of supply chains. President Obama would invigorate the relationship if he were to grant China “market economy“ treatment in anti-dumping cases. While such a reform would take very little out of petitioning industries’ hides, the gesture would win vast sums of goodwill from the
Chinese—goodwill needed to resolve more important issues going forward. Indeed, repeal of the non-market economy (NME) designation presents a “win-win“ scenario for several reasons.
First, graduation from NME status is one of the Chinese government’s top international
trade priorities. China wants to be treated like all other major economies, and accordingly, the Chinese government is likely willing to make important concessions in other contested areas of trade policy to achieve market economy status. But the longer we wait to grant market economy status to China, the less valuable that concession becomes. Under the rules governing China’s accession to the WTO, the United States must repeal China’s NME designation by 2016. Thus, the value of that “concession“
will be greater in 2009—seven years early—than it will be in 2010 or 2012. Much beyond
2012, and the concession looks a bit like Confederate money.
Second, China’s NME designation has drawn intense criticism from domestic consuming industries, trade policy experts, and U.S. trade partners because of its incongruous application (for example, Russia was deemed a “market economy“ in 2002, yet still is not a WTO member, while China became a WTO member in 2001) and the latitude for abuse of administrative discretion it affords. Also, the relatively recent change in policy that opened the door to countervailing duty cases against China has sparked controversy about whether NME treatment in anti-dumping cases should still be permissible.
U.S. revocation of China’s NME status would alleviate many of those domestic concerns at virtually no cost to domestic petitioning industries, but petitioners value NME because of the trade-suppressing uncertainty the process engenders. It is important that President Obama understand that our trade relationship with China has been mutually beneficial, that the rhetoric about the impact of unfair Chinese practices has been highly exaggerated, and that unnecessary provocation could open a Pandora’s Box of economic problems.
(Read the whole analysis here.)
Well, Lincicome (in a thorough analysis) and I (in a fairly technical one) continue to make the case for market economy designation, and welcome the retorts of those who are opposed.
The Panel Makers’ Petition
One of the most famous documents in the history of free-trade literature is Bastiat‘s famous “Candlemakers’ Petition.” In that parody, the French economist and parliamentarian imagined the makers of candles and street lamps petitioning the French Chamber of Deputies for protection from a most dastardly foreign competitor:
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity. . . .
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival . . . is none other than the sun.
For after all, Bastiat’s petitioners noted, how can the makers of candles and lanterns compete with a light source that is totally free?
Thank goodness we wouldn’t fall for such nonsense today. Or would we?
We may be about to find out. Makers of solar panels have petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission to slap tariffs on imported Chinese panels. Christopher Joyce of NPR reports that Gordon Brinser, CEO of Solar World, complains that U.S. manufacturers can’t compete with cheaper Chinese imports. The Chinese panels aren’t free; but just as Bastiat’s candlemakers complained, the competition is hard to counter.
Perhaps the comparison is unfair. After all, the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing isn’t asking for protection from the sun, only from Chinese panel producers who are allegedly “dumping” panels into the American market “at artificially low prices.”
What’s the difference, though? Any source that supplies solar panels to American consumers and businesses is a competitor of the American industry. And any source that can deliver any product cheaper than American companies is a tough competitor. Domestic producers will no doubt gain by imposing a tariff on their Chinese competitors. But companies that install solar power will lose, by having to pay higher prices for panels.
Businesses would always prefer a world without competitors. If they can’t outcompete their rivals in the marketplace, they may be tempted to ask the government for protection. And our “antidumping” laws actually invite such complaints. But economists agree that consumers, and the businesses that use imported products, lose more on net than producers gain. Protectionism is a bad deal for the American economy. Let’s hope the uncompetitive solar panel manufacturers get told to go build a better mousetrap.
More on “antidumping” laws here.
Does the U.S. Economy Need More Boeings or More Facebooks?
Remember the story of that once-great nation that sacrificed its well-paying manufacturing jobs for low-wage, burger-flipping jobs at the altar of free trade? At one time, that story was a popular rejoinder of manufacturing unions and their apologists to the inconvenient facts that, despite manufacturing employment attrition, the economy was producing an average of 1.84 million net new jobs per year every year between 1983 and 2007, a quarter century during which the real value of U.S. trade increased five-fold and real GDP more than doubled.
The claim that service-sector jobs are uniformly inferior to manufacturing jobs lost credibility, as average wages in the two broad sectors converged in 2005 and have been consistently higher in services ever since. In 2011, the average service sector wage stood at $19.18 per hour, as compared to $18.94 in manufacturing. (But I don’t recall buying any $25-$30 hamburgers last year.)
One reason for U.S. manufacturing wages being higher than services wages in the past is that manufacturing labor unions “succeeded” at winning concessions from management that turned out to be unsustainable. The value of manufacturing labor didn’t justify its exorbitant costs, which encouraged producers to substitute other inputs for labor and to adopt more efficient techniques and technologies.
With the superiority-of-manufacturing-wages argument discredited, new arguments have emerged attempting to make the case that there is something special – even sacred – about the manufacturing sector that should afford it special policy consideration. Many of those arguments, however, conflate the meanings of manufacturing sector employment and manufacturing sector health or they rely on statistics that don’t support their arguments or they become irrelevant by losing sight of the fact that resources are scarce and must be used efficiently. And too often the prescriptions offered would place the economy on the slippery slope that descends into industrial policy.
I recently submitted this rebuttal to this essay by an environmental sciences professor by the name of Vaclav Smil, who commits those errors. (Judging from the tone of his mostly evasive response to my rebuttal, Smil doesn’t seem to have much tolerance for views that differ from his own.) Perhaps most noteworthy among Smil’s slew of questionable arguments is his claim that manufacturing companies, like Boeing, valued at $50 billion, are better for the economy than service companies like Facebook, which is also valued at $50 billion because
[i]n terms of job creation there is no comparison… Boeing employs some 160,000 people, whereas Facebook only employs 2,000.
GOP the Loser in Primary Fight over Immigration
Over at National Review Online this morning, I ask how the Ronald Reagan of 1980 would have fared in today’s Iowa caucuses given his views on how to tackle illegal immigration (“GOP Candidates Betray the Spirit of Reagan on Immigration”). My conclusion, based on the current mood of many Republicans, is that Reagan would have been the target of a barrage of attack ads:
In April 1980, when Ronald Reagan was competing in the presidential primaries, he rejected the building of a wall between the United States and Mexico: “Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit — and then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems.”
If a Republican presidential candidate said such a thing today, he or she would suffer withering criticism for being soft on illegal immigration. Instead, we hear Reagan’s successors talk about implementing national ID cards, imposing intrusive regulations on the labor market, raiding farms, factories, and restaurants, and harassing small-business owners trying to survive in this tough economy, all in the name of chasing away hard-working immigrants.
The unhealthy competition among the current Republican candidates to sound tough on immigration also risks alienating millions of Hispanic voters who could otherwise be persuaded to support the party. If conservatives want to rediscover the more optimistic, inclusive, reform-minded spirit of Reagan, they should be talking about real immigration reform, not about spending more money and enacting more sweeping regulations to enforce a fundamentally flawed system.
Our Freedom to Trade Expanded in 2011
The news right now is full of retrospective stories about 2011. Not to be left out, here are a few observations on the real if modest progress made in 2011 to expand the freedom of Americans to trade in the global economy. (I’ll add links along the way to related Cato work.)
After four years of stalemate, this fall Congress passed and President Obama signed legislation implementing three pending free-trade agreements, with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. When fully implemented, these FTAs will eliminate just about all barriers to trade with three key allies. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates the three agreements will boost U.S. exports and output by more than $12 billion.
Just as importantly, their passage signals that the two major parties can still work together to promote trade liberalization. Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the agreements, including freshman members connected to the Tea Party movement, and enough Democrats joined in to pass them all by comfortable margins. President Obama, to his credit, found a political path to support the agreements despite the opposition of his labor-union base.
With the passage of the agreements with Panama and Colombia, the Pacific Coast of the Americas has been effectively transformed into a free-trade area. (Ecuador is the lone hold-out.) When combined with NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, and FTAs with Peru and Chile, the United States now has free-trade agreements with neighbors that account for 87 percent of our two-way trade in the Western Hemisphere. The vision of a free trade area of the Americas from the Yukon to Tierra del Fuego has been effectively realized.
2011 also witnessed the United States and Mexico sort out the dispute over cross-border trucking—the last piece of unfinished business from the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Under a pilot program put forward by the Obama administration, safety-certified Mexican trucks can now deliver goods within the United States, and U.S. trucks can do the same in Mexico. Now that the U.S. government is finally complying with its commitments, Mexico lifted sanctions on $2.4 billion of U.S. exports. This is real progress for economic freedom, the rule of law, and showing respect for our 100 million Mexican neighbors.
U.S. Falling Behind in Global Competition for Human Capital
A powerful trend in today’s more globalized world is the growing competition among nations to attract and keep human capital — people with the skills and education necessary to make a modern, open, market economy hum.
Nobody has done a better job of describing this phenomenon than British journalist Robert Guest in his new book, Borderless Economics: Chinese Sea Turtles, Indian Fridges, and the New Fruits of Global Capitalism, just out from Palgrave Macmillan.
Guest is the business editor of the Economist magazine. He’s traveled widely in the United States and across the world. He has a keen understanding of the market forces shaping the global economy today, as well as a reporter’s eye for interesting people, places, and companies that tell the story.
The author summarized Borderless Economics in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, and the book was favorably reviewed in the same newspaper this week. The reviewer, Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason magazine, highlighted an immediate application of the book’s thesis to U.S. immigration policy:
Mr. Guest notes that the U.S. annually awards only 85,000 H-1B visas for highly skilled workers; more than that number have been known to apply on the first day that applications can be submitted. America is strong because it has long been the nation richest in the resource that matters most: talent. Yet the U.S. government every year turns away tens of thousands of the most talented, motivated people in the world.
The Cato Institute hosted a book forum for Robert Guest in November, with comments from Edward Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations. You can view the event here.
Treasury Exchange-Rate Report Hits, and Misses
The U.S. Treasury Department finally released its overdue semiannual “Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies” yesterday. I’ve been reading through the informative report this morning so you won’t need to. Two quick comments:
First, the report declined, once again, to brand China a “currency manipulator,” and for good reason. The term is needlessly confrontational. As the report documents, while the Chinese currency is probably still undervalued, the Chinese government has been taking concrete steps toward a more flexible exchange-rate regime. Since it began its currency reforms in July 2005, the renminbi has appreciated 40 percent on a real (inflation-adjusted) basis against the U.S. dollar. And 40 percent just happens to be the upper range of the revaluation that was demanded by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other critics of China trade back then. They should declare victory and move on to more pressing economic problems, such as cutting federal spending and promoting private-sector growth.
Second, the report repeats the common but false assumption that a shrinking trade deficit is necessarily good for economic growth, and a rising deficit bad. From p. 6 of the report, we read:
Trade was also a bright spot in the third quarter [of 2011], as exports once again grew faster than imports. The resulting decline in the net export deficit contributed 0.4 percentage point to real GDP growth.
This reflects the simplistic Keynesian assumption that rising imports are a drag on growth because they merely replace domestic production. The truth is almost exactly the opposite, as I documented in my Cato study earlier this year titled, “The Trade-Balance Creed: Debunking the Belief that Imports and Trade Deficits Are a ‘Drag on Growth’.”
The truth, in theory as well as practice, is that a rising level of imports typically reflects rising domestic demand by both consumers and industry. Imports fuel U.S. production by supplying more raw materials, intermediate supplies, and capital machinery at competitive prices. That is why the U.S. economy has typically grown much faster during periods of rising trade deficits compared to periods of shrinking deficits. True to form, the first three quarters of 2011 saw declining GDP growth even though, according to the Keynesian creed, the decline in the trade deficit was a supposed “bright spot.”
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
