JohnTommasi.com: The Economics of Unintended Consequences & Common Sense
  • Home
  • Murder Outside the Back Door
  • Murder at the Front Door
  • Danger Zone
  • About/Contact
  • Blog
  • Stock Pick of the week
  • FED Speak

China Tariffs and Trade

5/26/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
​The Tax Act of 1789 was one of the 1st substantive acts of the new nation and was signed into law by President Washington on July 4th of that year.  It placed an 8% tax on all imported goods.  Tariffs only existed on foreign goods and there is a constitutional provision that states cannot tax the goods of another state (the European Union was eventually structured after this provision in 1958).
     Tariffs were the principal source of the US government’s income (sometimes as much as 90%) prior to the imposition of an income tax in 1917.  There have been many positions on tariffs.  Abe Lincoln stated that he didn’t know much about trade but knew that if an American bought a coat from an English coat maker, the American had the coat and the Englishman had the money.  However, if an American bought a coat from another American, the American had the coat and the other American had the money.  It seems fairly intuitive at first, however, what Lincoln did not take into account was the economic concept of comparative advantage.  Essentially, this is when a country can produce a good with the lowest opportunity cost.  To keep it simple with an example, it means that New England States are better off growing apple and potatoes and trading with Florida for oranges and bananas.  Likewise, China has cheap labor and insufficient natural resources for its 1.3 billion population, whereas the US has technology and resources, hence trade with China, and given its inexpensive cost to produce many goods, electronics clothes etc, the huge trade imbalance (see chart).  

Picture
​As can be seen (chart), tariffs have fluctuated with the lowest being during the Civil War and WW I.  Most notable was the Smoot Hawley tariff of 1930.  Of all the galactically stupid acts that Congress could pass to stave off the depression, this was somewhere in the top 3.  After the stock market crash of 1929, a recession was inevitable, but as a result of the actions of Congress (the tariff) and the FED (shrinking the Money Supply by 30%), a recession was turned into a depression.  The logic behind the Smoot-Hawley tariff was protectionism; in other words, if we make foreign goods more expensive by imposing tariffs, consumers will turn to US made goods.  What Congress and the president failed to realize was that the US, at that time, exported more goods than it imported.  In addition, retaliatory tariffs were placed on US goods.  As a result world trade dropped by 35% and there was considerable damage to the American economy.  Fortuitously, this was quickly reversed and legislators realized the benefits of free trade.

​Since the Smoot-Hawley tariff, there have been a number of agreements world-wide to promote free trade since the 2 GATT’s (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade).  Then along comes Trump who has addressed huge trade imbalance that the US has across the world, but most specifically China.  U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $737.1 billion in 2018. Exports were $179.3 billion; imports were $557.9 billion (www.ustr.gov). The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $378.6 billion in 2018.  The simple fact of the matter is, that given China’s huge positive trade imbalance with the United States, they have much more to lose, and even tho there is some short term pain, it is inevitable that a solution will be reached.  The biggest is China’s continuing theft of intellectual property (stay tuned for next month’s blog on China and Chinese students in the US).  In the Chinese culture, men (it is a male dominated culture) that you are responsible for your own success, and this includes cheating and theft.  In this case US intellectual property and cyber-security.  The Huawei incident speaks for itself.  In a 2017 report, the Officer of the US Trade Representative said Chinese theft of American intellectual property cost between $225 billion and $600 billion annually.
  In retrospect, while there is short term pain (higher prices to consumers and lower profits for businesses), in the long run, the prospects are favorable.  Even tho I voted for Trump (which was more of a vote against Hillary), I don’t defend him, but he had the intestinal fortitude to tackle trade deficits and in the long run, this will be a net positive for the US.
0 Comments

    Author

    John Tommasi is a retired Senior Lecturer of Economics & Finance from Bentley University and  the University of New Hampshire.

    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    May 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from simone.brunozzi