The latest policy 'burp' from Trump is that he will impose a 35% tariff on the goods made by any American firm which has switched production out of the USA to another country.
The aim is to reduce the price competitiveness that the move will bring to the firm and so make it less attractive to move. This, Trump believes, will keep more jobs in the USA.
Analysis of this protectionist policy measure might be quite useful. Many points to make so I'm going to dot point them.
- If 100% successful the measure would keep uncompetitive (inefficient) jobs in the USA - this means everyone is worse-off in the long run.
- The firms remaining in the USA will therefore loose their overseas markets to firms that do move (possibly from EU countries).
- The loser from this policy is the USA consumer, wherever the goods are made. They either pay more for goods made in the USA or more for goods made abroad, reducing consumer surplus.
- The obvious problem might be that the firms move export sales production overseas while keeping domestic sales production in the USA. All the gains go overseas in this scenario.
- There is likely to be retaliation from the country which hosts the firms, as their exports are now being taxed.
- This policy breaks the WTO rules and therefore is illegal.
- The policy misses the really important point that the USA needs to move to industries that are high value and knowledge based, not try to hang on to low value manufacturing jobs.
- The cost advantage of moving abroad may well be more than 35%, so it still pays to move abroad.
This topic comes under the International Economics topic for IB and is a good example of the new protectionism (economic nationalism) which is becoming popular. The problem is it goes against hundreds of years of economic knowledge on the gains from trade. An IA on this could look at the impact of a tariff, resource allocation or the impact on the various stakeholders.
No comments:
Post a Comment