FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Does Trump Not Understand Fundamental Principles Behind Multi-lateral Trade?

This past week, President Trump announced (tweet, tweet) that he plans to impose tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum. Besides affecting trade with Europe and China, the proposed tariffs would particularly affect Canada and Mexico. Canada is the biggest supplier of steel and aluminum to the U.S., and Mexico is the fourth largest source of steel. Both countries have asked to be excluded, and both indicated that they would strike back if Trump includes them in the stiff duties.  Trump’s basis for imposing such tariffs is on the grounds of national security, arguing that the U.S. cannot rely on foreign imports for steel and aluminum. This rationale in and of itself is totally baseless given existing security arrangements among the three countries and the nature of their integrated economies.

Not only this, Trump’s announcement has thrown a wrench into current negotiations among the three countries respecting the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Canadian and Mexican teams are absolutely furious, and rightly so.  The steel and aluminum tariff announcement may have just killed off any hopes of advancing on major sticking points at the NAFTA talks, including setting new rules for auto content in the region.  On top of which, Trump has implied that the two countries would not be excluded from the imposition of tariffs unless a new NAFTA deal is made which would benefit the U.S.  Some negotiating tactic!

The problem for the U.S. is that the Americans export as much steel and aluminum to Canada as they import from Canadian manufacturers. The North American market has nicely evolved over decades to allow both countries to develop more specialized sources of steel manufacturing, benefiting both countries.  This is why U.S. businesses and labour unions (e.g. United Steelworkers or USW) are arguing for an exemption from the planned tariffs. The USW, representing steel workers on both sides of the border, even went on record with the following:

Canada is not the problem. The United States and Canada have integrated manufacturing markets and our union represents trade-impacted workers in both nations. In addition, the defense and intelligence relationship between the countries is unique and integral to our security. Any solution must exempt Canadian production. At the same time, Canada must commit to robust enforcement and enhance its cooperation to address global overcapacity in steel and aluminum. …”

Once again, the Trump administration has demonstrated its complete lack of good economic policy, all in the name of political opportunism. We now have an integrated North American market, exemplified by the fact that Canada is the biggest trade partner with the U.S.  The major problem is that there appears to be a complete lack of understanding as to how multi-lateral trade arrangements work in today’s global markets.  Unfortunately, if Trump’s approach continues, then the NAFTA talks will falter much to the detriment of all three countries and to their respective economies.  Consumers will suffer as will workers.  Hopefully, growing American domestic opposition to Trump’s protectionist trade policies will prevail.  One can only hope!

Leave a comment »

Free Trade Versus Protective Policies and Where Is Trump Going On This?

As part of his campaign, President Trump stated time and time again that he wanted to either renegotiate trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) involving Canada and Mexico or withdraw from negotiations involving future agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Well, Trump withdrew from his predecessor’s signature TPP trade deal on his first full weekday in office, leaving the 11 other countries that had negotiated the pact to wonder if years of work had just gone down the drain. Currently, NAFTA negotiations are taking place with a ridiculous December 2017 deadline to complete a new deal.

The problem is that trade today involves a global economy with integrated production and services of multinational corporations around the world. Trump’s attempt to introduce protective policies is most likely going to hurt American corporations as much as foreign enterprises and workers.  In order to be competitive, American corporations now rely heavily on goods, services and component production found in other countries.  In the case of NAFTA, those in the U.S. vastly underestimate the important trading relationship most of the 50 states hold with Canada. Indeed, 35 American states trade more with Canada than any other country. Currently, some 70 percent of Canada’s trade is with the U.S. — the majority of which benefits both countries. NAFTA has also benefited Mexico economically in various ways and those American states bordering Mexico.

American, Mexican and Canadian consumers benefit through access to more and cheaper goods and services, as evidenced by the number of American retail outlets operating in Mexico and Canada. With NAFTA, we have evolved into a continental economy, with improvements for labour and the environment — particularly in Mexico as a result of side agreements. What’s interesting is that the Republicans have always been the defenders and promoters of free trade in Congress and the White House, as were leaders of the Conservative Party in Canada. Ironically, we now have a Liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who is promoting the benefits of free trade for all three countries.

Yes, there are things that can be improved in NAFTA since its implementation almost thirty years ago. World economies have changed a lot since then, particularly with new technologies. However, most experts believe that its benefits to all three countries far outweigh its costs. Other factors, such as new innovations in communications, energy and robotics have had a greater impact on the labour market and the environment than trade agreements. Simply introducing more protective policies will not change or stop the consequences of rapid innovation in the manufacturing, service, finance and other sectors. Punishing countries through protective policies will simply hurt everyone involved. Such policies don’t only go against the changing realities of our times, but also against common sense.

Leave a comment »