IBJNews

HICKS: Chinese tariff is misstep toward trade war

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

Just a short year ago, economists of all stripes voiced fears of a rise in economic protectionism like that which contributed mightily to the Great Depression. I’m thankful cooler heads have prevailed and the worldwide recession now eases.

President Obama’s decision to levy a tariff on Chinese tires marks a troubling departure from that one area of economic serenity. By making the announcement late on a Friday evening, the president surely hoped to miss another catastrophic news cycle of the likes that have plagued him for weeks. By levying the tariff on a small industry, he sought to bolster flagging domestic support with a dose of 19th century protectionism. It is pure politics of the rankest sort.

Let me be clear that this foolishness has long bipartisan roots. George W. Bush was also guilty of protectionism with steel tariffs. The industry was far larger, but we were not then in the grips of a global recession. At least Mr. Bush learned one lesson and did not repeat the mistake, but in this matter both men failed their country alike.

It’s no surprise that, in light of this policy misstep, Mr. Obama is well blessed with an economic team who understands the need for free trade. His economists and supporters—especially Paul Krugman—are strangely silent on an issue upon which they built their reputation. Indeed, Krugman was elevated from tweedy professor to national columnist based on a popular book castigating the Clinton administration for far smaller lapses in judgment.

The president’s choice of timing is suspect for another reason. Coming as it did while Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels was in Asia on a highly publicized trade mission raises new questions. Is the president willing to spawn a trade war and dampen foreign investment in order to weaken a potential rival in the 2012 elections? Let us pray it is merely ineptitude at the White House.

In times gone by, the Chinese would simply respond by raising the tariff on U.S. tires. Those days are past.

Recognizing that trade wars are purely political, the Chinese have retaliated with astute political choices. The first victims are poultry producers. Tyson—a huge chicken producer and longtime Clinton financier—is about to feel abrupt pain at China’s partial exclusion of U.S. imports. If Hillary Clinton ever again condescends to step foot in Arkansas, Tyson might bend her ear on the matter.

The Midwest needs to worry, too. We produce chicken and pork. These huge exports to China represent items we just might be eager to sell to the world’s fastest-growing economy. Our largest exports to China also include electrical supply parts, aerospace parts, medical equipment and supplies. General Electric is another close friend of the Obama administration likely to feel the heat from Chinese reprisals.

No matter what you think of President Obama’s policies, his cool demeanor and earnestness command respect. The fumbling antics of protectionism do not. This is the first shot in a trade war not of necessity, but of choice.•

__________

Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT