FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Trump and His Tariffs

Photo by Marco Verch | CC BY 2.0

President Donald Trump promised to “make America great again”. The slogan defined his campaign and his presidency. His bluster was often forgiven because of the sentiment attached to that slogan—it inspired a hope that Trump’s policies would protect the U.S. economy and ensure that the declining standard of living of Americans would be reversed. A year into his presidency, there is little evidence of any improvement. Inequality continues to define the American economic landscape—CEOs, new government data show, can make up to a thousand times more in their salaries than their employees. It is impossible to suggest that high inequality and joblessness should be the character of a Great America. Red hats with that slogan are easy to produce, but it is a bitter pill if these are made—as they often are—in Bangladesh, China and Vietnam.

President Trump has now announced a tariff policy on aluminium and steel, which he hopes will redouble efforts by the manufacturing sector to kick-start a languid economy. Trump framed his tariff policy around the framework of national security rather than economics. Other powers, mainly China, he said, were “assaulting our country”. It was to prevent this assault that the U.S. would build a high wall around these key sectors of its manufacturing. It was clear that this was less about economics and more about politics when Trump announced speedily that “good friends”—Canada, Mexico, Australia—would be excluded. Australian and Canadian firms are major producers of aluminium through Rio Tinto and through the subsidiaries of the American aluminium giant Alcoa. The largest aluminium producers in the world are Chinese and Russian, but the materials are mainly used in Eurasia rather than exported to the U.S.

Chinese export of steel to the U.S. accounts for merely 3 per cent of the U.S.’ steel imports. The major countries from where steel goes to the U.S. are Canada, which will likely be excluded from the tariff, and Brazil, which will not be excluded. Brazil’s private steel companies, Gerdau and CSN, are subsidised by very favourable loans from the government bank, BNDES. Brazil’s right-wing government, already in the midst of political turmoil and with little guarantee that it will be able to win the elections later this year, has asked the Trump administration for an exception. If Trump gives Brazil the exception, the policy will appear to be more smoke and mirrors than based on reality.

China is the rhetorical target of Trump’s policy, even though Chinese firms export neither aluminium nor steel to the U.S. But this anti-China move is part of a process at the Trump White House. Trump had released a national security report that identified China as a “strategic competitor”, and the 2017 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance has strong words that China is a cyber-thief and a cyber-spy.

Trump’s advisers on tariff policy are Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Economic Adviser Peter Navarro and Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. These three men share an obsession with China. They believe that China is undermining America’s capacity to become great again. Their views are grounded less in economics and more in politics.

U.S. businesses fear retaliation

The tariff policy pointed its fingers at China. Trump has defined the project of making American great again in opposition to China. It is as if a halt to China’s advance will somehow contribute to the greatness of America. But it is clear that Trump will not be allowed to push too hard against China and that his policies will not impact China negatively. Commercial lobbies in the U.S. responded negatively to Trump’s China policy because they feared retaliation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 44 other such associations wrote a stinging letter to Trump asking him not to impose tariffs against China. If the U.S. did so, they wrote, it would “trigger a chain reaction of negative consequences for the U.S. economy”. Apple, Google and Walmart are among the firms that say that they would not like a trade war with China. They rely upon China for production and for markets. It would be catastrophic for them if China fought back.

Interestingly, the data on U.S.-China trade deficits used by the Trump administration as a dog whistle about Chinese “unfairness” are out of date. The statistic bandied about is that China has an advantage of about $375 billion over the U.S.— a very high number. However, this is an illusion. Most of the goods that come to the U.S. from China are not entirely made in China but are made along the global circuits of production—some are even made in the U.S.

Components come from around the world into China, where they are utilised in the goods produced for exports. When the value of these components is factored in, the trade deficit drops to $200 billion (based on the World Input Output Database). The U.S. consumption patterns benefit not only China but a range of countries, including the U.S. An attack on China will impact many other countries more than China itself.

Europe’s retaliatory tariffs indicate that the Europeans are not in a trade war but want to send a political message to the U.S. They have put tariffs on blue jeans and on cranberries. The latter is significant. It is a key industry in Wisconsin, House Representative Paul Ryan’s State. It is a little message to Ryan and to America’s iconic product (blue jeans). Cecilia Malmstrom, the European Commissioner for Trade, said that a trade war was not on the cards. “A trade war has no winners. If it does not happen, all the better.”

China is likely to file a lawsuit against the U.S. in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The U.S. has shown a propensity to ignore the WTO when its rulings are adverse. In 2002, President George W. Bush slapped a 30 per cent tariff on steel on national security grounds. The WTO ruled against the U.S.; Bush ignored the WTO. The Europeans imposed tariffs on goods made in congressional constituencies that were up for re-election. Bush abandoned the tariffs to make sure that his party would not be hurt in the mid-term elections. The retaliatory tariff on cranberries harks back to that feint by the Europeans.

But the U.S. had been developing bilateral treaties outside the WTO and multilateral arrangements that it dominated in order to undermine the WTO. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), whose purpose was to exclude China, was a way to develop new trade standards favouring the West—standards such as new kinds of intellectual property protections, new forms of investor settlement mechanisms and restrictions on state-owned enterprises. Trump had trashed the TPP in the early part of his presidency, but there are now signs that he might return to that table if it enables him to push China off balance.

This column originally appeared on Frontline (India).

 

More articles by:

Vijay Prashad’s most recent book is No Free Left: The Futures of Indian Communism (New Delhi: LeftWord Books, 2015).

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
January 24, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
A Letter From Iowa
Jim Kavanagh
Aftermath: The Iran War After the Soleimani Assassination
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Camp by the Lake
Chuck Churchill
The Long History of Elite Rule: What Will It Take To End It?
Robert Hunziker
A Climate Time Bomb With Trump’s Name Inscribed
Andrew Levine
Trump: The King
James Graham
From Paris, With Tear Gas…
Rob Urie
Why the Primaries Matter
Dan Bacher
Will the Extinction of Delta Smelt Be Governor Gavin Newsom’s Environmental Legacy?
Ramzy Baroud
In the Name of “Israel’s Security”: Retreating US Gives Israel Billions More in Military Funding
Vijay Prashad
What the Right Wing in Latin America Means by Democracy Is Violence
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Biden’s Shameful Foreign Policy Record Extends Well Beyond Iraq
Louis Proyect
Isabel dos Santos and Africa’s Lumpen-Bourgeoisie
Nick Pemberton
AK-46: The Case Against Amy Klobuchar
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Promtheus’ Fire: Climate Change in the Time of Willful Ignorance
Linn Washington Jr.
Waiting for Justice in New Jersey
Ralph Nader
Pelosi’s Choice: Enough for Trump’s Impeachment but not going All Out for Removal
Ted Rall
If This is a Democracy, Why Don’t We Vote for the Vice President Too?
Mike Garrity – Jason Christensen
Don’t Kill 72 Grizzly Bears So Cattle Can Graze on Public Lands
Joseph Natoli
Who’s Speaking?
Kavaljit Singh
The US-China Trade Deal is Mostly Symbolic
Cesar Chelala
The Coronavirus Serious Public Health Threat in China
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Must Remain Vigilant and on Guard Against US Hybrid Warfare
Robert Fantina
Impeachment as a Distraction
Courtney Bourgoin
What We Lose When We Lose Wildlife
Mark Ashwill
Why Constructive Criticism of the US is Not Anti-American
Daniel Warner
Charlie Chaplin and Truly Modern Times
Manuel Perez-Rocha
How NAFTA 2.0 Boosts Fossil Fuel Polluters, Particularly in Mexico
Dean Baker
What Minimum Wage Would Be If It Kept Pace With Productivity
Mel Gurtov
India’s Failed Democracy
Thomas Knapp
US v. Sineneng-Smith: Does Immigration Law Trump Free Speech?
Winslow Myers
Turning Point: The new documentary “Coup 53”
Jeff Mackler
U.S. vs. Iran: Which Side are You On?
Sam Pizzigati
Braggadocio in the White House, Carcinogens in Our Neighborhoods
Christopher Brauchli
The Company Trump Keeps
Julian Vigo
Why Student Debt is a Human Rights Issue
Ramzy Baroud
These Chains Will Be Broken
Chris Wright
A Modest Proposal for Socialist Revolution
Thomas Barker
The Slow Death of European Social Democracy: How Corbynism Bucked the Trend
Nicky Reid
It’s Time to Bring the War Home Again
Michelle Valadez
Amy Klobuchar isn’t Green
David Swanson
CNN Poll: Sanders Is The Most Electable
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Our Dire Need for “Creative Extremists”—MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”
Robert Koehler
FBI, King and the Tremors of History
Jill Richardson
‘Little Women’ and the American Attitude Toward Poverty
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail