Sign Up for FREE Daily Energy News
canada flag CDN NEWS  |  us flag US NEWS  | TIMELY. FOCUSED. RELEVANT. FREE
  • Stay Connected
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • instagram
  • youtube2
BREAKING NEWS:
Hazloc Heaters
Copper Tip Energy Services
Zachry Integrity Engineering
Zachry Integrity Engineering
Hazloc Heaters
Copper Tip Energy


Jack Mintz: With Trump’s Tariff Threat, We’re Reaping What We Have Sown


These translations are done via Google Translate

Either we believe in free trade or we don’t. If we push our own protectionist policies how can we lecture the U.S. for responding in kind?

Donald Trump is using the threat of a 25 per cent tariff to bludgeon Canada and Mexico into taking action to halt to the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the U.S. This threat extends an emerging policy trend: it has now become acceptable to discard free trade in favour of trade barriers supporting other political objectives. But we’re reaping what we’ve sown.

It took centuries for the public to accept the idea that free trade is good for a country, a notion that began with two influential British political economists. In 1776, Adam Smith argued that mercantilism (favouring domestic production by restricting imports) leads to monopolies in the domestic market and prevents consumers from buying goods from the cheapest sources. In 1815, David Ricardo explained how the British “Corn Laws,” which protected agriculture, benefited farmers and land-owners but hurt the poor by raising corn and wheat prices. He argued that countries should pursue their comparative advantage by specializing in industries that make the most productive use of their labour. Eventually, in 1846, the Corn Laws were repealed and Britain adopted free trade throughout its empire.


Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It's FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here


Despite growing acceptance of free trade, mercantilism did not die. The imposition of tariffs by the U.S. in 1930 and retaliation by other countries shrunk world trade and deepened the Great Depression. That experience led to the formation in 1947 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to promote freer trade. In 1995, the World Trade Organization was created to continue GATT’s work of reducing both tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. Many countries also entered into bilateral or multilateral trade agreements, such as the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988 and its successor, 1994’s North American Free Trade Agreement, with Mexico added as a third partner.

BBA Consultants
GLJ
Economists argue that free trade lowers consumer prices and raises living standards by encouraging countries to specialize in products and services they do best. Even unilateral free trade can be better than responding to other countries’ protection. Free trade does create losers, but net economic gains are enough to allow winners to compensate losers.Failure to protect losers has seriously undermined support for free trade, however. China joining the WTO in 2000 brought lower prices for consumers, higher growth rates and less income inequality globally. But Chinese subsidies to exports and theft of intellectual property became significant irritants. In many western countries the industrial heartland suffered as manufacturing shifted to lower-wage Asia, which is why in his first mandate Trump slapped tariffs on steel, aluminum and Chinese goods in general and renegotiated NAFTA and other trade deals.Trump is taking lots of blame for his aggressive targeting of Canada and Mexico but neither major party in Congress now favours free trade. Industrial policy that privileges domestic over foreign producers is in vogue everywhere. Leaders push for “de-risking” of international supply chains with protection or friend-shoring. Canada is no different. As a relatively small nation but a big trader, we understand trade is important, but protectionism underlays many of our own industrial, investment and trade policies — and it long has: we’ve got foreign ownership restrictions in banking and telecom, special land transfer taxes for foreign buyers and many other barriers.
Three-quarters of our merchandise trade is with the United States so a 25 per cent tariff will hurt. Oil, gas, refined petroleum, autos and parts are almost a third of our exports, and they’re directed 90 per cent to the United States.

For decades Canadian trade policy experts have nattered on about diversifying away from the U.S. But that has not happened. The current federal government discouraged oil and gas diversification by opposing LNG plants and oil pipelines to the east and west coasts (though it did complete the doubling of the TransMountain pipeline after a decade). The integration of the North American auto market that began with 1965’s Auto Pact effectively discouraged auto trade with other countries.

Though Trump’s tariffs will hurt his own economy, the U.S. is in a better position to offset lost imports from Canada by expanding its own domestic production, which already accounts for almost a quarter of world GDP. On such short notice, it will be harder for us to find other buyers for our goods and services the U.S. ends up not taking.

Our only real course is to make a deal with Trump. Ideally, he’ll hold off on tariff hikes until he negotiates new deals. Worst case from our perspective: he imposes tariffs now with negotiations to follow. Either way, we need to address any illegal immigration and drug smuggling that do originate here, even if Mexico is the bigger problem in this regard. If Trump chooses to include supply management, the digital service tax and our lack of defence preparedness in his demands, we should be ready to respond on these issues, as well.But we can’t suck and blow at the same time. Either we believe in free trade or we don’t. If we push our own protectionist policies, like supply management, how can we credibly lecture the Americans when they respond in kind?


Share This:



More News Articles


GET ENERGYNOW’S DAILY EMAIL FOR FREE