The trade war is smart geopolitics

Yes, Gun Ownership Is a God-Given Right

Harm-Reduction Beats Drug War as a Response to Addiction

Climate Change: A Convenient Excuse for Dems to Transform the Economy

What Did Bernie Sanders Say about Abortion and Poor Countries?

Gun Used in Texas Shooting Was Illegally Manufactured and Sold: REPORT

Meghan McCain Is Right about AR-15 Confiscation, and You Know It

Behind Closed Doors

Bloomberg Backtracks from Misleading ‘Anti-Semitism’ Charge after Accused DOL Official Is Rehired

Buttigieg Calls Climate Change a ‘Moral’ Issue, Says a ‘Reckoning’ Is Coming for Republicans

Regurgitating Talking Points about Assault Weapons Is Not ‘New Research’

Of Course Social Security Reform Ideas Have to Be Crafted ‘Behind Closed Doors’

Bernie Sanders Advocates Population Control in ‘Poor Countries’

Texas Governor Issues Spate of Executive Orders Designed to Prevent Mass Shootings

2020 Dems: We’ll Do Anything to Stop Climate Change, but We Won’t Do That

Feds Fine Michigan State Record $4.5 Million for Handling of Larry Nassar Allegations
Economy & Business
The Trade War Is Smart Geopolitics
By Nicholas Phillips

September 5, 2019 5:08 PM

President Donald Trump meets with China’s President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, June 29, 2019. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
The president’s China tariffs may inflict short-term pain on American consumers, but it’s a small price to pay to combat an existential threat to the U.S.

When President Trump first took office, American tariffs on Chinese imports stood at 3.1 percent, little more than a barnacle on the hull of a $600 billion trading relationship. After the latest round of tariffs took effect on Sunday, that number stood at 21.2 percent, and if the next round is implemented on schedule, it will soon reach 30 percent. Economists and business leaders used to nervously reassure themselves that China tariffs were a temporary negotiating tactic to get President Xi to make concessions in a future trade agreement, but the truth is emerging that trade war is the new normal. The Trump administration has ceased talk of soybean-purchase agreements and begun talk of “decoupling.”

Trump’s decision to change our posture toward China from free trade to trade war is one of the most significant policy shifts in recent American history — and one of the most misunderstood.

Free-trade advocates tend to think of tariffs as misbegotten economic policy, intended to give the American economy a leg up by protecting domestic businesses from Chinese competition. They point to data indicating that tariffs are injuring the American economy more than they are helping it, notably by increasing prices. Americans for Tax Reform has protested that China tariffs “harm American companies and consumers who rely on low-priced products to run their businesses and budget their households.” The George W. Bush Institute has claimed that when consumers have to pay more for products, “the nation is less prosperous.” Thomas Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, announced his opposition to trade war with China by noting that tariffs are “taxes paid for by American families and American businesses.”

Donohue is right that tariffs are a tax on American businesses, consumers, and investment. But we should be happy to pay taxes toward a worthwhile end. Indeed, if the end is important enough, and a tax helps us achieve it, paying could be a patriotic duty. The Chinese call this “eating bitterness.”

Few ends are more important than economic growth, but the free traders err in assuming that a China trade policy that fails to immediately deliver more of it is bad, because one more-important end is geopolitical survival. The true value of the trade war lies in preventing American businesses from aiding the rise of an adversary.

NOW WATCH: ‘Trump’s Chinese Tariffs Means It’ll Cost Americans $1,000 More a Year Just to Live’
Watch: 0:44
Trump’s Chinese Tariffs Means It’ll Cost Americans $1,000 More a Year Just to Live

The Chinese Communist Party is pursuing a long-term goal of global hegemony. The foundation of its authoritarian system is high-tech surveillance, which it uses to monitor its citizens’ every move. To build this panopticon more efficiently, China is seeking to lead the world in AI, telecom, and other advanced technologies, and so requires foreign companies that enter the Chinese market to “share” some intellectual property while running aggressive industrial-espionage operations to take the rest.

Because China doesn’t have the natural resources to dominate high-tech industries, it is also pursuing a neo-colonial foreign policy to acquire them. That requires power projection, so China has turned a dozen countries around the world into client states through debt peonage, collateralizing abusive loans with concessions for military bases and deep-water ports. Larger countries such as Pakistan and Burma have been brought into the Chinese orbit through dependence on infrastructure financing from the Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China’s answer to the U.S.-led World Bank.

China’s growth strategy represents a direct threat to the United States. Historically, the emergence of a peer competitor to an existing hegemon has always resulted in bloodshed. Beijing’s economic expansion is already fueling a policy of military expansion in Asia, which threatens to bring China into conflict with American allies Japan, South Korea, India, and the Philippines. Optimists who believe that economic interdependence will forever forestall conflict must be made to explain why, following its integration into the world economy, China became more authoritarian and more militaristic rather than less. We should expect the trend to continue, not reverse. The Pentagon certainly does: Its 2018 National Defense Strategy is built around a shift from small wars to “great-power competition” with China.

This state of affairs raises many questions. Why is our industrial supply chain located inside of an adversary? Why does our military readiness therefore depend on that adversary? Why are American companies allowed to transfer critical technologies to China in exchange for short-term market access? Why can Tesla build self-driving cars in Shanghai? Why can Google run an AI lab in Beijing after canceling an AI contract with the Pentagon?

The free traders have an answer: because the market wills it. But of course, markets have no reason to prefer one global power over another, and there’s no market rule barring a surveillance state from winning the competition. In that competition, our ideological commitment to free trade is nearly as great a handicap as the Soviet Union’s commitment to central planning was during the Cold War. Free trade with China means allowing its distortions into our market. Refusing to allow our government to “pick winners” by rejecting industrial-policy support to key sectors means that Beijing will pick winners for us. Depending on Ricardian comparative advantage to organize supply chains means, in effect, that we will watch helplessly as American innovations are transformed into growth-boosting industries elsewhere, as firms reap efficiency gains by locating their engineering and management operations next to their manufacturing.

Inevitably, the innovation will depart too. A recent survey of 369 manufacturers found that American firms are moving their R&D operations to China not just to take advantage of lower costs, but to be in close proximity to their supply chains. Some 50 percent of foreign R&D centers in China are now run by American companies, helping China achieve first place in market share for manufacturing R&D. If we remain neutral as to where supply chains are located, “we innovate, they build” will become “they innovate, they build.”