Monday, March 26, 2018

The Right Way to Judge Chinese Governance [feedly]

The Right Way to Judge Chinese Governance

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-governance-strengthens-structural-reform-by-andrew-sheng-and-xiao-geng-2018-03



Mar 26, 2018 ANDREW SHENG ,  XIAO GENG

In a fast-changing world, governance systems must support rapid decision-making under conditions of radical uncertainty, while maintaining accountability. That – not the Western expectation of what a governance system should look like – is the standard by which we should be assessing political developments in China.

HONG KONG – Following China's "two sessions" – the annual meetings of the national legislature and the top political advisory body – all Western observers, it seems, are discussing the removal of the two-term limit for the president. Xi Jinping, the international media insists, is consolidating power, and may even be laying the groundwork for a Mao Zedong-style personality cult. But this reading is fundamentally flawed.


Recent changes in China should instead be regarded as part of a broader process, in which competing systems of governance are emerging to cope with complex, globally connected challenges, such as disruptive technologies, geopolitical rivalries, climate change, and demographic shifts. In short, countries are trying to find their governance footing.The predominant Western view that Xi's growing authority represents a dangerous trend partly reflects anxiety over growing challenges to democracy in the United States and across Europe. But it makes little sense to view Chinese political developments through a Western lens, especially at a time when the world is shifting from a unipolar to a multipolar system.

In a fast-changing world, governance systems must support rapid decision-making under conditions of radical uncertainty, while maintaining accountability. That – not the Western expectation of what a governance system should look like – is the standard by which we should be assessing political developments in China.

In fact, Western-style governance no longer looks like the gold standard its advocates long proclaimed it to be. Western democracies are facing serious internal threats – most notably, populist forces espousing dangerous policies like trade protectionism – that have risen largely in response to these systems' failure to manage problems such as income inequality, political polarization, rising debt, and failing infrastructure.

That failure partly reflects the short-termism that tends to dominate in Western democracies, where short electoral cycles (from about six months to four years) often compel politicians to focus on cyclical issues, rather than on structural impediments to long-term productivity gains and income growth. (Similarly, Western companies tend to base their operations on quarterly results, and thus may neglect long-term risks and opportunities.)



PreviousNext

By contrast, when China's leaders formulate and execute policies, they tend to think in terms of decades. This is vital to enable an effective response to the structural problems – such as corruption, environmental pollution, and inequality – that more than two generations of rapid growth and development have brought.

The current bureaucracy, working within its silos, is already addressing these problems, in order to create a more equitable society that is also innovative and adaptable. Only then can China escape the infamous "middle-income trap" before population aging begins to take a higher toll on economic growth.

More broadly, China's leaders have set a 30-year target for modernizing the country's economy and governance – a long-term goal that reflects the kind of vision that few countries have managed to articulate, let alone implement. By removing the presidential term limit, China's leadership is improving its chances of success, by opening the way for Xi and his vice president, Wang Qishan, to go further in realizing this vision.

Xi and Wang are seasoned politicians with extensive experience dealing with crises and managing complex institutional and social challenges, from the local to the global level. Both have a strong grasp of history, as well as the charisma and will needed to confront recalcitrant vested interests. Their continued leadership is thus invaluable.

But this does not mean that accountability will be lost. On the contrary, the National People's Congress has approved a major overhaul of China's governance structure, creating a new National Supervision Commission to check corruption by all Chinese officials, regardless of their affiliations or status in the Communist Party of China.

The State Council has also been restructured, with ministries, commissions, and agencies consolidated and streamlined to manage reforms in a more coordinated and efficient way. For example, agriculture and rural affairs have been combined under one ministry, as have all environmental issues.

Likewise, in order to reduce financial-sector risks (including excessive leverage and shadow banking), regulation of banking and insurance have been consolidated under the new China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission. These sweeping institutional reforms would make China's governance structure look functionally similar to American and European counterparts.

Like Xi and Wang, officials at these institutions are dedicated, competent, and experienced reformers. Assisting Premier Li Keqiang will be the Harvard-educated vice premier Liu He, who has spent more than 30 years in long-term development planning, and has a deep understanding of how market forces can support efficient resource allocation. Financial reforms are in the hands of People's Bank of China Governor Yi Gang, a US-educated economist, and the chairman of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, Guo Shuqing, an Oxford-trained economist with experience in provincial leadership, central banking, and securities regulation.

Two thousand years ago, the Chinese philosopher Han Fei argued that effective governance required three things: the rule of law, bureaucratic tools, and political will. Changing laws or honing the tools of governance is important, but they mean little without sustained and determined efforts by political leaders. China's system has survived because its leaders have been willing to confront market failures and administrative deficiencies in a direct and consistent manner. New efforts to boost accountability – vital to reinforce legitimacy – will strengthen the system further.

China, like the US and Europe, is too big to fail. It thus has a responsibility to develop a system of governance that can deliver structural changes to its economy and society, while ensuring effective accountability. The test is whether that system adapts to long-term challenges and contributes to national and global wellbeing, not whether it adheres to Western standards.


ANDREW SHENG

Writing for PS since 2011
74 Commentaries

Subscribe

Andrew Sheng, Distinguished Fellow of the Asia Global Institute at the University of Hong Kong and a member of the UNEP Advisory Council on Sustainable Finance, is a former chairman of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, and is currently an adjunct professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. His latest book is From Asian to Global Financial Crisis.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Kugman: Trump and Trade and Zombies [feedly]

Trump and Trade and Zombies

Paul Krugman

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/donald-trump-trade-.html


Almost four decades have passed since Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously declared, "Of a sudden, the G.O.P. has become a party of ideas." And his statement still holds true, with one modification: These days, Republicans are a party of zombie ideas — ideas that should have died long ago, yet still keep shambling along, eating politicians' brains.

The most important of these zombies is the "supply side" insistence that cutting taxes on the rich reliably produces economic miracles, and conversely that raising taxes on the rich is a recipe for disaster. Faith in this doctrine survived the boom that followed Bill Clinton's tax hikes, the lackluster recovery and eventual catastrophe that followed George W. Bush's tax cuts, the debacle in Kansas, and more.

And Donald Trump's selection of Larry Kudlow to head the National Economic Council confirms that the tax-cut zombie is undead and well. For Kudlow is a fervent believer in the infinite virtues of tax cuts, despite a track record of predictions based on that belief that, as New York magazine's Jonathan Chait once wrote, "has elevated flamboyant wrongness to a form of performance art."

Yet there is more to economic policy than taxes; Trump himself, while willing to sign whatever tax cuts Congress sends him, seems far more interested in international policy, in particular the supposed evils of trade deficits. And that's where things get interesting.

You see, now that "globalists" like Gary Cohn have left, all the people advising Trump on international economics are, like those advising him on everything else, in thrall to zombie ideas. But there's more than one kind of zombie. In fact, there are in effect two factions — equally wrong, but wrong in different, almost opposite ways.


You might say that when it comes to international trade, Trumpworld is heading for a kind of zombie civil war.

On one side, we have the neo-mercantilists — people like Peter Navarro, Trump's trade czar — who see world trade as a tale of winners and losers: Countries with trade surpluses win; those with trade deficits lose.

Newsletter Sign Up


Both logic and history say that this view is nonsense: Trade surpluses are often a sign of weakness, trade deficits sometimes a sign of strength (as a matter of arithmetic, a country that attracts more inward investment from foreigners than it invests abroad must run a trade deficit). And the neo-mercantilists have a habit of making crude errors, like misunderstanding how value-added taxes work.

Still, they have Trump's ear, because the rocks in their heads fit the holes in his: They're telling him what he wants to hear, because their errors play to his gut instincts, and when it comes to policy, he don't need no education.

Yet they're not the only faction talking dangerous nonsense on international economics. The Trump administration has also become home to what we might call neo-goldbugs: people who think that a nation's strength can be measured by the strength of its currency, and refuse to see any downside in a strong dollar, never see any reason a weaker dollar might be needed.

Like neo-mercantilism, or for that matter supply-side economics, this view has been debunked many times — I wrote about it in 1987! — yet keeps shambling along, because it appeals to the prejudices of wealthy and powerful people.


Until now, the most visible neo-goldbug in the administration has been David Malpass, the under secretary of Treasury for international affairs — normally a position of great policy influence, although under Trump, who knows? Malpass is the former chief economist of Bear Stearns, and a man with a Kudlow-like record of being wrong about everything. In particular, however, back in 2011 Malpass published an op-ed article declaring that what America needed to fix its economic ills was a stronger dollar (and higher interest rates).

It was a bizarre claim. After all, at the time the unemployment rate was still 9 percent — and a stronger dollar would have made things even worse. Why? Because it would have made U.S. products less competitive, increasing the trade deficit — and a situation of persistently high unemployment is the one situation in which trade deficits really are an unambiguously bad thing, reducing the demand for domestic goods and services.

But here's the thing: Kudlow appears to share Malpass's worldview. In fact, his first newsworthy statement after Trump announced his selection was a call for a higher dollar — something that would worsen the very trade deficit Trump sees as a sign of American weakness.

Why has Trump hired people with such conflicting notions about international economic policy? The answer, presumably, is that he doesn't understand the issues well enough to realize that the conflict exists. And what both sides in this dispute share is a general propensity for invincible ignorance, which makes them Trump's kind of people.

Anyway, on international economics the Trump administration is now on track for a battle of the zombies — a fight between two sets of bad ideas that refuse to die. Pass the popcorn.







 -- via my feedly newsfeed


Should-Read : Paul Krugman : Globalization: What Did We Miss? : "Anyone who worked on the political economy of trade po... [feedly]

Should-Read : Paul Krugman : Globalization: What Did We Miss? : "Anyone who worked on the political economy of trade po...
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/03/should-read-paul-krugman-httpswwwgccunyeducuny_gcmedialiscenterpkrugmanpk_globalizationpdf-anyone.html

Should-Read: Paul Krugman: Globalization: What Did We Miss?: "Anyone who worked on the political economy of trade policy knew that fights over tariffs look very much as if they come out of a specific-factors world...

...labor and capital within a given industry are generally on the same side in trade policy disputes, not on opposite sides as they would be if they were thinking about the broad factoral distribution of income. It should have been obvious that the general politics of globalization would reflect that same reality. That is, never mind the question of how trade affects the blue-collar/white-collar wage gap, or the aggregate Gini coefficient; the politics of globalization were likely to be much more influenced by the experience of individual sectors that gained or lost from shifting trade flows...



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Edward Prasad: Five myths about tariffs

Five myths about tariffs 

 March 22 
Eswar Prasad is a professor of trade policy at Cornell University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.


  

President Trump's decision to impose tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum imports, followed by his plan to hit China with $60 billion in tariffs, appears to augur a trade war. Worries about the stability of the international trading system have roiled financial markets and led to loud recriminations from Congress, economists and foreign leaders . As with many economic policies, tariffs can create winners, losers and lots of misconceptions.

MYTH NO. 1
Tariffs will help reduce the U.S. trade deficit.

President Trump seems to believe that taxing imports of certain goods, which would raise their prices and reduce demand, will bring down the trade deficit. He tweeted that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) "has been a bad deal for U.S.A." because of our "large trade deficits." The AFL-CIO supports this view. And it's true that the U.S. trade deficit, which represents the excess of imports over exports, was $566 billion last year (or nearly 3 percent of annual gross domestic product). Blocking imports seems like a simple way of fixing the deficit.

It's not. Retaliatory trade barriers put up by other countries would hurt U.S. exports and offset reduced imports, meaning the trade deficit wouldn't vanish. What's more, lower exports would mean less employment — a possible unintended consequence of Trump's policy.

Trade deficits are ultimately a result of macroeconomic policies that influence how much a country produces and consumes. When a nation consumes and invests more than its annual output, it has to run a trade deficit. A temporary deficit is not a bad thing if it reflects good investment opportunities or strong income growth that leads people to spend more money. But a trade deficit fueled by large government budget deficits can be harmful.

Reducing government borrowing and helping U.S. firms boost their productivity (meaning they could better compete abroad) would do a lot more to shrink the trade deficit than anything else. Getting other countries to drop their trade barriers would certainly help, but doing this through bilateral and multilateral agreements is likely to be more successful than simply raising tariffs.

MYTH NO. 2
The United States would win a trade war.

A trade war is an escalation of tit-for-tat trade restrictions imposed by two or more countries on one another's exports. Trump has argued that trade wars are "good, and easy to win," especially since the United States imports a lot more from many of its trading partners than it exports to them. Some analysts, such as Robert E. Scott of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, argue that other countries won't even dare engage in a trade war with America. This past week, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin asserted that "the United States is the largest trading market," implying that it has more leverage than other countries.

But shutting down trade with any country would lead to collateral damage. A trade war wounds all combatants: It rattles business and consumer confidence, restrains exports, and hurts growth. Many U.S. businesses rely on low trade barriers to create international supply chains that reduce costs and increase efficiency. These could come apart amid the new tariffs. The last time the United States imposed sweeping tariffs, in the 1930s, the effect was to prolong and worsen the Great Depression. Winning a trade war by destroying both imports and exports would be a Pyrrhic victory.

MYTH NO. 3
Tariffs are powerful negotiating tools.

Tariffs are often seen as sticks that increase leverage in trade negotiations with other countries. The message is: If you don't give us favorable terms, we'll hurt your industries. Conservative economists such as Larry Kudlow, who was named Trump's top economic adviser this month, and Arthur Laffer , both of whom have derided tariffs in the past, make this argument. Trump's threats seem to have softened China's position in talks with the United States; Beijing has signaled that it may open more of its markets to American goods and better protect the intellectual property of U.S. companies.

This is a dangerous game, since even the threat of such action opens the door for other countries to consider unilaterally protecting their own industries through similar measures. Former U.S. trade representative Michael Froman notes that other capitals could block imports of U.S. agricultural products on the grounds of food security, thereby improving their negotiating positions. The European Union has threatened tariffs on American bourbon, peanut butter, cranberries and orange juice. The mere uncertainty fomented by Trump hurts U.S. businesses that rely on intricate international supply chains.

All countries, even long-standing trading partners and allies, now have reason to reevaluate their economic relationships with the United States, which looks like an untrustworthy partner. After Trump pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the other 11 countries in that arrangement moved on without Washington; they'll benefit from easier access to one another's markets for their exports at a moment when we're the ones saying we need to export more.

MYTH NO. 4
Tariffs are an unfair, illegal strike against trading partners.

Foreign officials, such as European Union Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, have labeled Trump's tariffs unfair and a violation of World Trade Organization rules. A Chinese official blasted the proposed tariffs against China as a "wrong practice" and groundless.

The WTO permits tariffs under certain conditions, including when a country faces unfair competition from trading partners; other nations have tariffs on many products, often at higher levels than ours. China has skirted WTO rules and not met its commitments to open up its domestic markets, so the WTO has okayed previous tariffs against it. The body even allows trade sanctions based on national security considerations in exceptional circumstances, such as war or some "other emergency in international relations."

The problem is that Trump's tweets suggest that his tariffs are really focused on economic objectives, not national security. This pretext opens the door for other countries to use similar grounds to impose retaliatory sanctions, undermining the rules of the global trading system.

MYTH NO. 5
The tariffs will not help the steel and aluminum sectors.

Some economists think tariffs are so terrible that nothing good can come of them. "Targeting bilateral trade deficits makes no sense and can be counterproductive," Washington Post contributor Jared Bernstein wrote on his personal blog this month. Even some aluminum industry leaders have expressed reservations about whether the tariffs will help their businesses. In a headline, the Aluminum Association called "Across-the-Board Tariffs A Missed Opportunity on Industry Trade Challenges."

In fact, they will help. By limiting imports, which accounted for about one-third of steel demand and nearly 90 percent of primary aluminum demand in the United States last year, the tariffs will lead to higher prices in the United States for both metals. This will be great for steel and aluminum company profits. Indeed, stock prices of companies in these industries jumped when the tariffs were announced as investors anticipated higher profits in the coming years. Unfortunately, this won't do much for employment in these industries, which are becoming highly automated. Moreover, higher prices will be passed on to consumers who buy metal things, such as cars, machinery and construction materials. This will hurt employment in those sectors and could reduce the demand for steel and aluminum.

Twitter: @EswarSPrasad

Five myths is a weekly feature challenging everything you think you know. You can check out previous myths, read more from Outlook or follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.


--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, The Enlighten Radio Player Stream, 
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Are the Trump Tax Cuts Working and Does Anyone Care? [feedly]

Are the Trump Tax Cuts Working and Does Anyone Care?
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/are-the-trump-tax-cuts-working-and-does-anyone-care

Are the Trump Tax Cuts Working and Does Anyone Care?

Dean Baker
Truthout, March 19, 2018

See article on original site

By far the biggest part of the tax cut the Republicans pushed through Congress last year was a cut in the corporate income tax rate. The package included many special provisions for specific industries, and exempts future foreign profits from US taxes altogether. But its main feature was a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent.

Most immediately, this looks like a huge giveaway to the rich, who own a grossly disproportionate share of stock. The richest 1 percent of households hold nearly 40 percent of stock shares, and the top 10 percent holds close to 80 percent. Lower corporate income taxes means more money in these shareholders' pockets. It can take the form of share buybacks, dividend payouts or simply higher prices per share, as stock values reflect the fact that companies keep a larger portion of their profits.

But the Trump administration argued that reducing corporate taxes would actually benefit ordinary workers. They argued that workers would see wage gains that were two- or three-times the size of the tax cuts. The argument was that the tax cut would prompt a flood of investment that would increase the size of the US capital stock by roughly a third, after a decade.

A larger capital stock would mean that workers were more productive. If workers were more productive, their pay would increase. The Trump administration's Council of Economic Advisers projected that these wage gains would increase annual income by between $4,000 and $9,000 for an average household.

The arguable part of the story is the link between corporate tax rates and investment. Those of us who are critical of the tax cut are skeptical that lower tax rates can have this large of an impact on investment.

Historically, there has been little relationship between after-tax rates of profit (the relevant factor) and investment. Furthermore, we did this experiment before. In 1986 Congress lowered the corporate income tax rate from 48 percent to 36 percent. There was no flood of investment following this rate cut. In fact, measured as a share of GDP, investment fell slightly over the next two years.

Since the tax cut passed, we get another chance to see whether this experiment works. Unfortunately, the discussion about the impact of the tax cut on investment has been obscured by worker bonuses announced by many companies as a public relations move.

To convince us that workers will share in the benefits of the tax cut, rather than go into shareholders' pockets, many major companies announced one-time bonuses. In almost all cases the bonuses were just a small fraction of the money received from the tax cut.

For example, AT&T is looking at annual tax savings of more than $2.3 billion. Their one-time bonus of $1,000 for 200,000 workers would come to $200 million, or less than one-tenth of their tax savings in a single year. Apple's one-time bonus would come to less than 5 percent of its annual savings.

The bonuses are very much a sideshow. The Trump administration promised an investment boom, not companies sharing a fraction of their tax break.

We now have the first evidence on the course of post-tax cut investment. It does not support the boom hypothesis.

The Commerce Department releases data on capital goods orders every month. These are the machines and equipment that comprise, by far, the largest single component of investment. Orders just means the companies decide they want to buy the items, not that they actually have the equipment in place and running.

The numbers for both December and January go the wrong way. Orders were down 0.3 percent in December and 1.6 percent in January. If we pull out volatile aircraft orders, the declines were 0.5 and 0.3 percent, respectively.

This is obviously early in the game. The tax plan just passed in December, but the broad outlines were known back in September. If tax cuts were a huge motivation for investment, we would expect that forward-looking businesses were already developing plans once the tax cut became a serious possibility.

We have another data source that tells the same story. The National Federal of Independent Businesses (NFIB) has been surveying its members for more than three decades. One of the questions it asks is whether the business plans to make a capital expenditure in the next six months.

The February reading shows 29 percent saying yes. That is up very slightly from the 28 percent average from 2017 but hardly seems like evidence of a boom. In fact, it is the same reading as the survey showed in August of 2014 during the Obama administration.

In short, neither the NFIB survey nor the Commerce Department data support the claim that the tax cuts would trigger an investment boom. It is unfortunate these data have not received more attention.

If the tax cuts actually did produce the sort of investment boom promised by proponents, there would be a good case for cutting the corporate tax rate. We now have good preliminary evidence that the investment boom exists only in the realm of political propaganda. Workers will not be getting any big dividends from this tax cut.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Jared Bernstein: Checkmate Trudeau, you handsome devil! [feedly]

Checkmate Trudeau, you handsome devil!

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/checkmate-trudeau-you-handsome-devil/

A stopped clock is right twice a day, and, at least by one measure, President Trump was right about the United States running a trade deficit with Canada. The episode serves as a good reminder of a) the challenges that global supply chains pose to measuring trade flows; b) the need to stop treating unilateral trade balances as scorecards; and c) a signpost toward smarter trade policies.

This dust-up starts with Trump complaining to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about the U.S. trade deficit with Canada. By his own admission, Trump didn't know what he was talking about. He just felt like saying it. As Canadian trade representatives were quick to underscore, the U.S. data reveals a trade surplus with Canada.

What's surprising, however, is that the Canadian data reveals the opposite. The way they count the flows across our border, we are importing more from Canada than we are exporting to them (see Bloomberg figure below). By their accounts, Trump was right.


Source: Bloomberg

If you're confused, trust me, you're not alone. In this case, it comes down to the different ways we and the Canadians score re-exports, or goods that pass through Canada, as opposed to being produced there. In Canada's accounts, a Chinese washing machine that passes through a Vancouver port on its way to the United States gets counted as a Canadian export. In the U.S. data, that is a Chinese export. Thus, the Canadian data will show more exports flowing our way than will the U.S. data.

The group Public Citizen points out that when they crunch the numbers (their bold):

"The United States exported $267 billion to Canada in 2016, of which $46 billion is labeled 're-exports.' This means that U.S. domestic exports to Canada were $221 billion. Do the same with the Canadian data: Canada's domestic exports to the United States were $266 billion. You will see that the United States had a $45 billion goods deficit with Canada when comparing the nations' domestic goods exports to each other."

That's just goods, but Public Citizen finds that even accounting for trade services, Trump was right.

Some take this to mean "checkmate Trudeau, you handsome devil! Cease and desist!" I do not. Instead, I take it to imply that trading partners need to harmonize their treatment of re-exports. The real criterion for an export should be that it constitutes significant, domestic economic activity in its production, not just repackaging or reshipping.

That is harder than it sounds as goods are increasingly produced in many different places. The Chevy Bolt, according the New York Times, is "as American as a karaoke bar." It is "composed of 26 percent American/Canadian parts. The sales sheet isn't more specific because the parts don't care whether they're made in Ontario or Michigan."

ADVERTISEMENT

Still, putting a car together, even with imported parts, creates real economic activity; shipping a car that was assembled somewhere else through your port creates far less.

Luckily, smart trade policy doesn't need to solve these metaphysical puzzles. Instead, we need to understand when trade flows (measured as consistently as possible) are problematic, whom they hurt, and what to do about them.

Right now, when we're closing in on full employment, trade deficits do not pose a broad economic problem, though they still represent the damage done to communities that have lost their manufacturing base and have been largely abandoned by policymakers, who play directly into Trump's hands by endlessly prattling on about the benefits of free trade, with no reference to globalization's downsides.

When trade deficits are a problem is when there are no countervailing forces to offset their negative impact, or when the borrowed capital that flows here to support the deficit is plowed into unproductive investments such as housing bubbles (the 2000s) or reckless fiscal deficits (now).

In this regard, it's important to recognize that we've been running economically significant trade deficits in this country since the mid-1970s, suggesting something structural (as opposed to the ups and downs of the business cycle) is in play. Part of that "something" is "mercantilist" policies by our trading partners, who intervene in global currency markets to cheapen their currencies and, thus, the dollar cost of their exports to us.

So, instead of making up stories about trade balances, even if they accidentally turn out to be true, here is what we ought to do. Instead of trying to block imports through scattershot tariffs, which have no track record of lowering trade deficits, we should help our manufacturers expand their exports by fighting back against currency manipulators and by helping smaller manufacturers link up with global supply chains.

The former calls for "countervailing currency interventions"— you intervene in our currency markets, we'll intervene in yours. The latter calls for at least doubling the paltry $130 million budget of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the best little agency you've never heard off, with a long history of helping small and medium-size manufacturers increase their efficiency, sales and jobs.

Next, as Dean Baker argues, stop protecting professionals and patents, as doing so promotes upward redistribution and, thus, exacerbates the already inequality-inducing aspects of trade.

Add to that a true opportunity agenda for those hurt by globalization, featuring a jobs program in places where, even today, employment remains weak, and we will begin something that has long eluded us: a useful, substantive conversation about trade.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed