- The Washington Times - Saturday, April 16, 2005

When the unexpectedly wide February trade-gap report came out this week, it wasn’t the dollar that got hit — the dollar is regulated by the Fed’s money-supply policies. It was the stock market that got slammed as the threat of anti-growth protectionism loomed even larger.

Tariffs and trade barriers are tax increases on international trade flows. They are anti-growth. They impoverish consumers and small businesses who prefer to choose the best-quality goods from around the world at the lowest prices. Government tariffs interfere with economic freedom by reducing choices and lowering prosperity.

The U.S. is already embroiled in a number of anti-dumping trade disputes with the European Union and Canada. And if American textile and clothing manufacturers get their way, imports from China will be limited next. As per the Wall Street Journal, textile imports from the rest of the world have temporarily fallen as China textile exports temporarily surged. But this is all about choice. You can’t blame China and you can’t blame consumers.

But you can blame U.S. textile makers. These businesses have been protected nearly 30 years but still can’t seem to compete. Why should consumers be denied choice simply because a handful of companies can’t cut the mustard?

Free trade is a cornerstone of economic growth and prosperity. Lower tariffs have the same positive economic effect as lower tax rates, while the separation of government controls and economic free-enterprise improves choice and efficiency. Blocking choice is only detrimental to growth. Tariffs lower consumer purchasing power, living standards, and also business profits — the backbone of the economy.

The high tide of recent global trade liberalization occurred under Presidents Reagan, George Bush the Elder, and Bill Clinton. Despite chronic trade deficits, total U.S. trade with the rest of the world (imports and exports) surged more than $2 trillion in the 1980s and 1990s. Meanwhile, real economic growth averaged nearly 3.5 percent, net job increases totaled roughly 36 million, and the average unemployment rate was only about 5.7 percent. The domestic economy prospered as Americans freely bought and sold.

The benefits of free trade also extend to greater competition and higher productivity, both of which contribute to economic growth. In the 19th century classical liberal economic model championed by economic philosophers Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Joseph Schumpeter, along with Victorian politicians William E. Gladstone and Winston Churchill, free trade not only advanced economic growth but world peace.

This point is emphasized by historian Jim Powell in his latest book, “Wilson’s War.” The dawning of the world free-trade era was associated with unprecedented European peace. Free trade helped all political parties and all world nations. It was not zero sum. It was — and is — win-win.

However, when politicians and economists turned toward protectionism in the early 20th century, increased hostilities, nationalism, and ultimately two world wars followed. The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff in the United States, and the worldwide retaliation against it, was a precursor to the Depression, foreign totalitarianism and World War II.

Powell makes this relationship very clear, though nativist politicians will remain blind to it. Instead, they’ll harp about trade deficits and clamor for protectionism “to create jobs.”

That’s a dangerous course. Today, the U.S. is trying to make Europe an ally in the campaign to defeat terrorism by spreading freedom and democracy worldwide. What sense does it make to deepen hostilities through increasing trade conflicts? The same question can be applied to China.

Proliferating protectionism expands the scope of government intervention in ways inimical to economic growth. It also sows bad feelings among nations who mistakenly believe trade wars in the pursuit of domestic treasures can do good.

The U.S. trade gap isn’t growing larger because of free trade. It’s swelling because some of our biggest export customers, namely Western Europe and Japan, overtax and overregulate their economies. Consequently, stagnant growth abroad contrasts with strong growth at home. So, while the healthy U.S. economy exports at an impressive 9 percent pace, we import at a much higher 17 percent. In this sense, the U.S. trade gap is a sign of economic strength. Because of our economic superiority, foreign investments flow into the U.S. to reap higher capital returns. This funds the current-account deficit the media love to discuss.

The solution to this trade imbalance is not more protectionism. Instead, global trade should be liberalized for the economic benefit of all nations. Meanwhile, our friends in Japan and Europe should institute pro-growth tax and regulatory reforms that will liberalize their economies. This, not protectionism, will reduce global trade imbalances. It may also provide a more united front in the life-and-death struggle against terrorism.

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company” and is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide