Most economists agree that free trade works better than restricted trade to increase the size of the economic pie. By enlarging markets to span national borders, free trade increases the pool of potential producers, consumers, partners, and investors, which permits greater specialization and economies of scale — both essential ingredients of per capita economic growth.

But, in practice, free trade remains elusive. It is the exception, not the rule. Sure, many tariffs and other border barriers have been reduced in the United States (and elsewhere) over the years, but protectionism persists in various guises.

There are “Buy American” rules limiting government procurement spending to local firms and US-made products; heavily protected services industries; seemingly endless incarnations of agriculture subsidies; import quotas on sugar; green-energy and other industrial subsidies; shipbuilding and shipping restrictions; the Export-Import bank; antidumping duties; and, regulatory protectionism masquerading as public health and safety regulations, to list some.

Ironically, protectionism is baked into our so-called free trade agreements.

Ironically, protectionism is baked into our so-called free trade agreements. It takes the form of rules of origin requirements, local content mandates, intellectual property and investor protections, enforceable labor and environmental standards, and special carve-outs that shield entire products and industries from international competition.

Trade agreements may be the primary vehicle through which U.S. trade barriers are reduced, but they are predicated on the fallacy that protectionism is an asset to be dispensed with only if reciprocated, in roughly equal measure, by negotiators on the other side of the table. If the free trade consensus were meaningful outside of economics circles, trade negotiations would be unnecessary. They would have no purpose. If free trade were the rule, trade policy would have a purely domestic orientation and U.S. barriers would be removed without any need for negotiation because they would be recognized for what they are: taxes on domestic consumers and businesses.

Arguably, opening foreign markets should be an aim of trade policy, but real free trade requires liberalization at home. The real benefits of trade are measured by the value of imports that can be purchased with a unit of exports — the so-called terms of trade. Trade barriers at home raise the costs and reduce the amount of imports that can be purchased with a unit of exports, yet holding firm to those domestic barriers while insisting that foreign markets open wider is the U.S. trade negotiating strategy. Indeed, that’s almost every government’s negotiating strategy. It is the crux of reciprocity-based trade negotiations, which, at its core, is a rejection of free trade.

That the case for free trade — even acceptance of the fact that trade makes us better off — is not second nature speaks to the endurance of several fallacies that inform popular opinions about trade. One such fallacy, which is continuously reinforced by media and stumping politicians, is that trade is a competition between “Us” and “Them.”

Exports constitute Team America’s points. Imports are the foreign team’s points. The trade account is the scoreboard. That scoreboard shows a deficit, which means the United States is losing at trade. And it’s losing because the foreign team cheats — often with impunity. That many Americans accept this narrative explains why protection-seeking industries couch their objectives in this “Us” versus “Them” context. By nurturing the false notion that the interests of U.S. consumers and taxpayers are inseparable from those of U.S. producers, it becomes that much easier for industry to obtain the protection that reduces competition, raises prices, eliminates choices, and slows innovation.

In The Spotlight

Why should the average American care about trade agreements if the spoils accrue to businesses in the form of export revenues? After all, the once-strong relationship between business performance and job creation has grown weaker. The better selling point is that import competition brings greater variety, better prices, best business practices, and inspires domestic companies to be more accountable and responsive to consumer demands. Import competition breeds innovation.

Presumably, Americans would care more about having international competition in the domestic commercial aviation sector — where foreign carriers are currently prohibited from serving — than they wish to see pharmaceutical patents extended to 12 years in some trade agreement. But commercial air competition — on the wish list of the European Union in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations — is something U.S. negotiators do not want to discuss.

Likewise, the 94 year-old Jones Act, which (among other anti-consumer features) prohibits foreign-built, -staffed, or -flagged shipping vessels from transporting goods between U.S. ports, forces Americans to subsidize less competitive U.S. shippers and their unions through the higher prices they pay for delivered goods. Again, shipping reform is on the European negotiators’ agenda but — despite the U.S economic and environmental benefits reform would bring — remains a subject that U.S. negotiators wish to avoid. The EU’s desire to open more U.S states’ procurement processes to competition is another example of where American consumer interests — in this case state taxpayers — are better served by the offensive negotiating agenda of the other government.

The takeaway is that reciprocity-based negotiations force negotiators to go to bat for their exporting interests, while they ignore the interests of those who benefit from greater import competition. There is no national team to support in these talks. Generally, producer interests are better represented by their own government, and consumer interests are, residually, better represented by the other government going to bat for its own producers.

The myth that trade is a competition between “Us” and “Them” is one of many misconceptions that serve to obscure the truth about free trade and its benefits.

Following is a list of what we at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies believe to be the ten most persistent fallacies about trade:

  • Trade is a competition between “Us” and “Them.”
  • The trade deficit means the United States is losing at trade.
  • Trade only benefits big business and the rich.
  • Foreign “outsourcing” hurts the U.S. economy.
  • Trade and globalization caused U.S. manufacturing decline.
  • Trade and globalization have spurred a “race to the bottom” in labor, environmental and product safety standards.
  • The WTO is an anti-American institution that undermines U.S. sovereignty.
  • Free trade is not fair trade.
  • Free Trade Agreements equal Free Trade.
  • Unilateral trade liberalization is akin to unilateral disarmament.

Certainly, there are other myths invoked to advance protectionist aims and to impede broader acceptance of the benefits of free trade. In 2014, we launched Cato Trade on Campus, which is an interactive, on-campus program intended to identify, discuss, and ultimately expose these fallacies. We will be visiting the Monterey Institute for International Studies this week and will kick off 2015 with a program at North Carolina State University in late January. Over the course of the year, we will be visiting other campuses and producing additional commentaries, analyses, and videos aimed at dispelling these various myths.

This article first appeared on the Cato at Liberty website.
Share

Daniel Ikenson
About The Author Daniel Ikenson [Full Bio]
Dan Ikenson is an author, speaker and Director of The Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, focusing on WTO disputes, regional trade agreements, U.S.-China trade issues, steel and textile trade policies, and antidumping reform.




Talkback (4)

  • Guest (WT "Bill" McKibben)

    Permalink

    Excellent! Our nation is cursed with the belief held by so many around the world through the ages that life is a zero sum game. From trade, to jobs, to immigration, greed and self interest prevail. No one seems willing to risk what they have - even given the proven knowledge that the bigger the pie the bigger your piece will be - IF you earn it. Maybe that's the problem, too many, from the lazy who ride on the efforts of their Union brothers, to the sugar planters, to Big Pharma, they know they are not earning their share. The wonder is that the vast majority who contribute everything within their capacity drink the Kool Aid the few dispense.

    Even more corrosive are those among us who are unwilling to share with those less fortunate. We forget that what we have is dictated first by luck (No! How well would you have done had you been born in the bush in Africa?) and only then by what we make of all the good fortune that propels us. Greed and lack of compassion are at the root of all evil. Or as it was better stated eons ago "The love of money is the root of all evil". Thanks Tim!

  • Guest (J Gromer)

    Permalink

    The people who write and speak on topics such as this need to get out and get some dirt or ink under their fingernails. If you think the so called free market has not driven wages down and jobs out of our nation you are not smart. Our economy and middle class is being wiped out but US monetay policy and by the incessant passion by consumers to buy the absolute lowest price in order to make ends meet.

  • Guest (JamesKnight)

    Permalink

    Free trade is a double edged sword. Thanks to free get products that are much cheaper than they would be if we tried to make them ourselves. So we end up getting more for our funds. What we fail to do is determine how much the corporation is profiting from free trade and relocating to another country where it's operating costs are substantially less. Every time that a company moves its production overseas, hundreds and thousands of Americans lose their jobs. James from http://sterlingstore.co.uk/payday-loans-direct-lenders.html

  • Guest (WebbRowan)

    Permalink

    I think it all boils down to whoever gets into the market first. It's a real big matter to give the right impression to people and I think that the market appreciates people who have stood the test of time - it's a sense of quality in a sense. And of course above all, you need a good deal of finance to implement all the schemes to get the upper hand too!

Leave your comments

0

Quick Search

Stock Watch

FREE Impact Analysis

Get an inside perspective and stay on top of the most important issues in today's Global Economic Arena. Subscribe to The Manzella Report's FREE Impact Analysis Newsletter today!