Raymond Richman - Jesse Richman - Howard Richman
Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog
Paul Krugman calls for 25% cross-the-board tariff on Chinese goods
In a commentary in Sunday's New York Times (Taking on China), Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman called for an accross the board 25% tariff on Chinese goods. Here is his specific recommendation:
In 1971 the United States dealt with a similar but much less severe problem of foreign undervaluation by imposing a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports, which was removed a few months later after Germany, Japan and other nations raised the dollar value of their currencies. At this point, it’s hard to see China changing its policies unless faced with the threat of similar action — except that this time the surcharge would have to be much larger, say 25 percent.
Krugman dimisses widespread defeatism concerning Chinese retaliation, arguing that America has little to fear from China dumping U.S. assets. He points out:
It’s true that if China dumped its U.S. assets the value of the dollar would fall against other major currencies, such as the euro. But that would be a good thing for the United States, since it would make our goods more competitive and reduce our trade deficit. On the other hand, it would be a bad thing for China, which would suffer large losses on its dollar holdings. In short, right now America has China over a barrel, not the other way around.
Krugman is definitely on the right track. He is suggesting that the tariff rate should be proportional to the Chinese currency value. Since the Chinese currency is 20-40% undervalued, the rate should be 25%.
However, China's trade manipulations involve much more than just currency manipulations. China could retaliate, for example, though tariff and non-tariff barriers to American products, as when it recently placed tariffs on American nylon products and chicken parts.
In order to prevent such retaliation, The tariff rate should be announced as being proportional to U.S.-China trade deficits. Not only are trade deficits a concrete measure, but they also give the tariff legitimacy since there is a special WTO rule which lets trade deficit countries apply import limitations or duties in order to balance trade.
With this mechanism in place, if our trade deficit with China comes down, the tariff rate would come down, if our trade deficit with China goes up, the tariff rate would go up. If our trade with China reaches relative balance, the tariff would disappear.
One of the Chinese government's biggest trade manipulations involves its lists of approved products. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard just reported that China is now excluding Boeing commercial aircraft from its approved lists. He wrote:
What interests me is Beijing's willingness to up the ante. It has vowed sanctions against any US firm that takes part in a $6.4bn weapons contract for Taiwan, a threat to ban Boeing from China and a new level of escalation in the Taiwan dispute.
These Chinese government lists determine which products can be purchased by the Chinese government or by government-owned businesses, or with government subsidies. China uses these lists of products to keep out foreign products. In 2009 they were able to grow their economy by 8.7% without increasing imports of American goods.
American companies have long understood that if they want access to the growing Chinese market they must move their factories to China. In December, China made a new rule requiring that foreign companies also move their Research and Development facilities and patents to China, and Pfizer has already announced that it is moving its R&D facility from Connecticut to China.
Krugman is on the right track. But if we want to solve the problem, we need to require balanced trade.
Comment by John, 3/29/2010:
Such a tariff would have unintended consequences. High inflation would be one. Consumer prices would rise dramatically, because domestic competitiors could raise prices without the competition from cheap imports. Of course the import prices (as seen by the consumer) would rise immediately due to the tariff. The Chinese probaably hold far more cards for retaliating than we do. Selling our treasuries would be one, while shifting their emphaisis to domestic consumption to replace our lesser demand. Krugman's advice could be castastrophic.
Ultimately, there is no way to compete, without, well, competing. That means being efficient, not overypaying labor as in Detroit. We can view China as a "black box". It is an entitiy that has and inputs and outputs. If it can produce and deliver goods cheaply, it is ultimately irrevelant what goes on internally. Complaining is useless and ineffective. They are simply out competing us, and nothing can paper over that stark fact. The only effective way to compete is-- to compete.
Comment by John Schuler, 4/11/2010:
I agree completely.
Prof Ravi Batra propsed a 25% import tariff on all imports more than a decade ago.
Sadly, the top 5% of our population who control sine 80% of the wealth - or who serve those who control the wealth, or who legislate in favor of those who control the wealth - like things just fine just the way they are, thank you very much.
We are already, or are fast becoming, a 3rd World Banana Republic - without the Bananas!
John Schuler, Portland, Oregon. email@example.com
Journal of Economic Literature:
Atlantic Economic Journal: