Mankiw: You Don't "Win the Future"

Greg Mankiw has a great op-ed in tomorrow's NYT about the wrongheadedness of trying to "win the future," as President Obama challenged us to do in his State of the Union Address.  Mankiw hits on several of the fundamental issues that I've discussed here, including the President's continued - and misguided - adherence to what I call "adversary economics."  I highly recommend the whole thing.  Here's a sample:

[C]alling on Americans to “win the future” misleads us about the nature of the policy choices ahead. Achieving economic prosperity is not like winning a game, and guiding an economy is not like managing a sports team.

To see why, let’s start with a basic economic transaction. You have a driveway covered in snow and would be willing to pay $40 to have it shoveled. The boy next door can do it in two hours, or he can spend that time playing on his Xbox, an activity he values at $20. The solution is obvious: You offer him $30 to shovel your drive, and he happily agrees.

The key here is that everyone gains from trade. By buying something for $30 that you value at $40, you get $10 of what economists call “consumer surplus.” Similarly, your young neighbor gets $10 of “producer surplus,” because he earns $30 of income by incurring only $20 of cost. Unlike a sports contest, which by necessity has a winner and a loser, a voluntary economic transaction between consenting consumers and producers typically benefits both parties.

This example is not as special as it might seem. The gains from trade would be much the same if your neighbor were manufacturing a good — knitting you a scarf, for example — rather than performing a service. And it would be much the same if, instead of living next door, he was several thousand miles away, say, in Shanghai.

Listening to the president, you might think that competition from China and other rapidly growing nations was one of the larger threats facing the United States. But the essence of economic exchange belies that description. Other nations are best viewed not as our competitors but as our trading partners. Partners are to be welcomed, not feared. As a general matter, their prosperity does not come at our expense....

The president is right that we should encourage a greater number of highly educated foreigners to migrate here. Because skilled workers pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, increasing their supply would reduce the fiscal burden on the rest of us. But if these foreign students decide to return home, as many do, we shouldn’t worry that they are competing against us.

Instead, we should view higher education in the United States as one of our most successful export industries. The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but most of the best universities. Is it any wonder that students from many nations flock here to learn? And as they do so, they create opportunities for Americans — from the professors who teach the classes to the grounds crews who maintain the campuses.

When the foreign students head home, they take the human capital acquired here to become productive members of their own communities. They spread up-to-date knowledge, so it can foster prosperity everywhere. Some of this knowledge is technological. Some of it concerns business, legal and medical practices. And some is even more fundamental, such as the values of democracy and individual liberty. Nothing could be better for the United States than these thousands of American-trained ambassadors who have seen at first hand the benefits of a free and open society.

Good stuff.

SOTU Round-up

There's far too much good commentary on last night's Go America Pep RallyState of the Union Address for me to list it all here, but these are the ones that I liked the best (other than mine, of course):

• Cato's Sallie James briefly explains why the President's "competitiveness" theme is misguided and dangerous.  She even channels the Sane Paul Krugman of Yesteryear ("SPKY"): "When it became clear that President Obama would make 'competitiveness' a theme of his SOTU address, I looked forward to seeing Paul Krugman’s statement pointing out how much nonsense that is. Here he is, after all, in his excellent 1997 book, Pop Internationalism (MIT Press): 'International trade, unlike competition among businesses for a limited market, is not a zero-sum game in which one nation’s gain is another’s loss. It is [a] positive-sum game, which is why the word 'competitiveness' can be dangerously misleading when applied to international trade.' Sure enough, President Obama’s speech last night was peppered with references to 'the competition for jobs,' 'new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else,' 'the competition for jobs is real,' etc. And of course there was a healthy dose of the usual mercantalist obsession with exports."  I'd only add that this type of "adversary economics" - i.e., discussing the global economy as a war to be won against our trading partners - is nothing new for this President, and I've critiqued it many times on this blog.  No need to do it again tonight, but I'm sure I'll be hitting it again soon.

• Cafe Hayek's Don Boudreaux provides some must-read clarity for those poor, misguided soles out there who thought that Obama's "pro-business" and jibberjabber would be warmly welcomed by those who believe in and support free markets.  My favorite lines: 

"In a free market, businesses profit only by pleasing consumers. But a business that obtains special favors from government can profit without pleasing consumers. And it’s here that trouble starts. Consider Obama’s commitment to make America more 'competitive.' (He used variations of the word 'compete' nine times in his address as part of his argument that American firms and workers are threatened by their foreign counterparts.) 'Competition' sounds good. But businesses don’t like competition; they like protection from competition – along with subsidies, special tax breaks, and other government favors that relieve them from the need to cater energetically to consumer demands. So a pro-business president is prone to curry favor with businesses by shielding them from competition."

"Did you know that in the decade from 2000 through 2009, the total amount of foreign direct investment (FDI) received by China was $686 billion, while the total amount of FDI received by the U.S. was $1.8 trillion – by far the largest inflow of capital from foreigners received by any country on earth? America’s receipt of FDI dollars exceeded China’s by 162 percent. On a per-capita basis, the figure is even greater: The amount of FDI America received per person from 2000 through 2009 was ten times (!) greater than was received by China. So when Obama said in his speech on Tuesday night that 'We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,' he wrongly implied that America currently doesn’t do so well in the international economy. But it does – which is not to say that there isn’t a lot of room for improvement. The president is correct that tax and regulatory reforms – along with reining in Uncle Sam’s deficit spending – are in order. Especially welcome is his call to lower corporate tax rates. And if calling such reforms 'competitiveness policies' improves their chances of being implemented, I’m all for it. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that America’s current economic troubles are caused by America’s open participation in global trade."

• AEI's Phil Levy succinctly labels it A Disappointing Speech and - gasp! - also channels SPKY: "In advance of the president’s State of the Union speech, I wrote about the need for difficult choices and serious stances on trade and the deficit. I didn’t hear any of that in the address. On trade, the president’s positive agenda was largely limited to endorsing his minor reworking of the three-year-old free trade agreement with Korea. He also mentioned vague plans to rework the Colombia and Panama agreements (after only two years of inaction!). I heard no mention of seeking trade negotiating authority, despite the recent efforts of Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to get it for him. Nor was there any initiative to advance the global trade talks that the president has repeatedly pledged to conclude. Instead, there was an unhelpful jingoistic refrain about international competitiveness and economic threats from abroad (see Paul Krugman for why this is misguided)."

• And speaking of SPKY, since all the cool kids seem to be quoting him, I guess I will too: "The view that nations compete against each other like big corporations has become pervasive among Western elites, many of whom are in the Clinton administration. As a practical matter, however, the doctrine of "competitiveness" is flatly wrong. The world's leading nations are not, to any important degree, in economic competition with each other. Nor can their major economic woes be attributed to "losing" on world markets. This is particularly true in the case of the United States. Yet Clinton's theorists of competitiveness, from Laura D. Andrea Tyson to Robert Reich to Ira Magaziner, make seemingly sophisticated arguments, most of which are supported by careless arithmetic and sloppy research. Competitiveness is a seductive idea, promising easy answers to complex problems. But the result of this obsession is misallocated resources, trade frictions and bad domestic economic policies."  Sadly, that was written in 1994, and SPKY is today little more than a collection of words on the InterTubes.  And even more sadly, our current President, despite all his talk of "winning the future" and dominating the 21st century, is, as deftly pointed out by the AmSpec's Phil Klein sounding a lot like his Democratic predecessor back in 1994.

• Finally, Judy Shelton of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation has an excellent op-ed on the problems with the President's approach to doubling exports and "investing" in the future.  She wisely notes: "The only way to increase real wealth is through productive activity that generates true gains in economic output leading to higher future living standards; if wages are going up while purchasing power is going down due to inflation caused by government deficit spending, the gains are illusory.  If you have faith that America can compete in the global marketplace without resorting to monetary artifice, you will not be quick to embrace a strategy that elevates government industrial policy over private sector decision-making and free-market outcomes."  Exactly.

With (Trade) Friends Like These...

I've frequently lamented the attempts of many advocates of trade liberalization and FTAs to champion free trade policies through an exports-only, essentially mercantilist, approach.  Tonight's State of the Union Address - and protectionists' responses to it - perfectly demonstrate why my angst is well-deserved and why free trade proponents in Congress, the White House and the US business community need to ditch the mercantilism and adopt a new sales pitch.

Beyond the simple fact that there are myriad moral and economic arguments for open markets that are equal to or better than an export-centric approach, one of the biggest problems with a "free trade" message based only on exports is that it's completely self-defeating.  As I said last year when commenting on the President's post-State of the Union statements on trade to a group of GOP congressmen:

Obama states that "the suspicion about trade agreements is that they're all one way." Ok, that's true, but what's feeding that suspicion is not the FTAs themselves, or most Americans' real-world experiences with imports and free trade, but rather political demagoguery and media misreporting on imports, the trade deficit and the state of US manufacturing.... Until these myths are corrected - until the American people understand that imports are good for US businesses and consumers, that US manufacturing output is still the world's largest, and that the US trade balance is not some "free trade scorecard" - any attempt to sell free trade through an exports-only focus will actually enhance Americans' suspicions, rather than alleviate them. Americans simply will look at the trade deficit (which the US has held since the 1960s, so it's not like it's going away anytime soon) and think that we're "losing" at trade, and that our supposedly "reciprocal" FTAs stink. Why? Because the President told them that exports are the only thing that matter, and that the only reason that American companies aren't exporting more is because our trading partners are cheating by illegally denying US companies access to their markets....

Protectionists, of course, are more than happy to exploit this glaring vulnerability and, as I've noted many times here, they've tailored their trade-skeptical (and myth-filled) messages to prey on the public's misconceptions about trade - many of which are fueled by free trade advocates' shoddy trade salesmanship.

Case in point: President Obama's State of the Union sales pitch on the US-Korea FTA:

To help businesses sell more products abroad, we set a goal of doubling our exports by 2014 – because the more we export, the more jobs we create at home. Already, our exports are up. Recently, we signed agreements with India and China that will support more than 250,000 jobs in the United States. And last month, we finalized a trade agreement with South Korea that will support at least 70,000 American jobs. This agreement has unprecedented support from business and labor; Democrats and Republicans, and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible.

The message here is clear: FTA = exports = jobs.  And while exports are certainly a fine and laudable goal, the immediate protectionist response to this argument is exactly as predicted:

• Whether trade creates U.S. jobs depends on net export gains and reducing the trade deficit, which our past policies have not done.
• U.S. export growth under past Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) has been less than half that to countries with which we do not have FTAs.
• The U.S. International Trade Commission's (USITC) official study of the Korea FTA that Obama will emphasize concluded that the deal would increase the U.S. trade deficit.
• Korea FTA's chief U.S. negotiator admitted it would not be a boon for U.S. exports.
• Beware of administration claim that the Korea FTA will "support" 70,000 jobs; the core question is what net effect the Korea FTA will have on U.S. employment.
• The Economic Policy Institute projects American job losses from the Korea FTA at 159,000.
• The December 2010 Obama supplemental Korea trade deal does not alter the increased trade deficit, job loss findings.
• The USITC study identified nine losing U.S. economic sectors that include many high-wage industries, including auto and electronics manufacturing.
• Beware of the administration claim that the Korea FTA could reduce the U.S. trade deficit.
• The auto manufacturing industry may lose a significant number of workers due to the Korea FTA.
• Lack of currency manipulation disciplines in the Korea FTA mean agriculture could also lose out.

Every single one of these arguments is based on the same old protectionist myths about imports, the US trade deficit, and the state of US manufacturing.  And, despite the fact that these myths (and bogus "stats" like those from the union-backed Economic Policy Institute) have been routinely debunked here and elsewhere, they unfortunately sound almost-plausible when cast against the backdrop of the President's mercantilist SOTU statements on exports and the US-Korea FTA (and, of course, other, similar statements from pro-trade members of Congress and the US business community).

Just as troubling is the fact that the anti-trade "response" above actually came out yesterday!  In short, the "pro-trade" message coming from the White House and Congress has become so stale and predictable that anti-traders don't even have to wait until after the message has been delivered before they respond with their tired, mythtastic talking points.  (It must be nice to get paid for repeatedly cutting and pasting the same old arguments over and over again, huh?)

Could you imagine if the President and other trade advocates ever changed their mercantilist tune and spoke about the benefits of both exports and imports?  Or if they defended each American's freedom to engage in voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions with whomever he or she pleases, regardless of the political boundaries involved?  Or if they denounced protectionism as a pernicious, regressive tax on American consumers designed to line the pockets of a few well-connected producers?  Or if they simply explained that the American manufacturing sector has resumed its decades-long rise and remains the world's largest, or that an expanding US trade deficit is closely associated with economic growth, or that 55% of all imports are capitol goods and equipment that American businesses use to remain globally competitive?

For starters, anti-traders' responses couldn't be mailed-in anymore; and they'd actually have to come after the President's remarks, not before them.  Maybe they'd come up with new arguments, but seeing the dreck that they currently peddle, I'm not so sure that they could.  And considering that they've been relying on the same tired playbook for the last twenty-odd years, it would definitely be fun watching them scurry to come up with new dreck for a change.

Crazy thoughts, I know.

State of the Union: Trade

President Obama devoted two paragraphs to US trade policy in his State of the Union address tonight:

[W]e need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that’s why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

I've already stated my many concerns re: a recovery strategy based on manufacturing exports, and while I certainly give the President credit for sounding kinda supportive of the pending FTAs and the WTO's Doha Round, his craptastic 2009 efforts in these areas (and others!) belie any new and real commitment to their success.  I'd be thrilled to see his 2010 agenda prove me wrong, but considering that President Obama's 2009 trade agenda also expressed support for pending FTAs and the Doha Round, I'd say that a hefty dose of skepticism is warranted.

More broadly, the President's words revealed an unflinchingly mercantilist worldview - exports are good, imports are bad, full stop - but this archaic, self-defeating outlook is also nothing new, so it's not like tonight's speech gave me any reason to get all worked up on a school night.  (He also repeated the tiresome pablum about ending tax breaks for "companies that ship our jobs overseas," and that's similarly out of touch with economic reality.)

In sum: same old, same old.  My 2010 predictions remain unchanged.