CHINA and AMERICA: A Much Bigger Shock

Is China ready for what America could unleash in trade war. Tariffs and blocking trade are just parts of the arsenal Washington could deploy – citing ‘national security interests’ – to monitor, control and stop commercial activities

An even bigger China shock
© Getty Images

//By now many of us are familiar with the basic arguments for and against President Trump’s trade war with China. Over the past few decades, U.S. imports from China have surged. Several academic studies referred to this as a “China shock,” which adversely impacted a number of American regions that focus on manufacturing. At the same time, most economists believe that international trade benefits the United States as a whole. More recently, the Trump administration has made a big issue about our trade deficit.

While all of these events might seem related, on closer inspection there are a number of puzzles that have been widely overlooked. The biggest puzzle is what the Trump administration is trying to achieve with its trade war. Is it a move to pressure the Chinese to open up their economy, thus reducing barriers to U.S. trade and investment? Maybe, but it was precisely the opening of the Chinese economy that first created the “China shock.”

READ RELATED: Trade war puts new strains on America Inc’s factories in China

Indeed, China was no threat at all to U.S. firms when its economy was closed under the leadership of Chairman Mao. An even more open China would create an even bigger shock, resulting in even more economic dislocation in the Rust Belt. Presumably, Ohio manufacturing workers who supported candidate Trump were not hoping China would buy more Hollywood films and computer software, so that America could buy more auto parts from China.
Does the Trump administration see it this way? Probably not. Key trade advisor Peter Navarro and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross hold highly unorthodox views on trade, accepted by very few professional economists—namely that a trade deficit reduces U.S. output and is largely caused by unfair trading practices by other countries. Most economists believe that the U.S. trade deficit reflects our low saving rate, and that it does not reduce our output. If this conventional view is correct, then any successful attempt to get other countries to accept more of our imports will also result in America accepting more of their exports, leaving the overall trade balance largely unchanged. Some defenders of Trump’s hardball tactics point to the possibility that they might lead to an agreement where we and our trading partners remove all of our tariffs. That might be a good outcome, but it’s an odd defense from an administration that has made a big issue of its opposition to free trade deals such as NAFTA.

Recent reports indicate that the Chinese are confused by the Trump administration’s negotiating tactics. They don’t seem to understand what the administration is specifically asking for, and after they believe they’ve reached a deal, the U.S. seems to change its mind.

Perhaps there is a split within the Trump administration — some may want a more protectionist America, while others prefer to use hardball tactics to advance a freer global trading system. One can find administration official comments to support either theory.  Trump has called the NAFTA agreement, which eliminated tariffs on trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico, the “worst trade deal ever made.” In contrast, he recently advocated eliminating all tariffs on trade between the United States and Europe.

READ RELATED: China Trade War: Where Are We Now?

In recent years, the average tariff rate in the United States, Canada, and Europe has been roughly 2 percent, which seems to conflict with the administration’s rather apocalyptic language describing the severe damage we are suffering from unfair trade practices. This creates a quandary: What sort of plausible trade war “win” could fix America’s huge trade imbalance? Perhaps this helps explain the administration’s difficulty in clearly defining its objectives with China.

The Eurozone has by far the world’s largest current account surplus, which is a more comprehensive measure of a trade balance, while the United States has by far the largest deficit. Because a current account deficit is also equal to the difference between domestic investment and domestic saving, the standard method for reducing a trade deficit is by boosting domestic saving and/or reducing domestic investment. To see why, consider what happens if we buy products from Germany but do not export any goods in return.  In that case, we exchange U.S. assets such as stocks and bonds for those German goods, which represents a net flow of German savings into the U.S. economy.

But Trump’s expansionary fiscal policy (deficit spending) is likely to dramatically reduce domestic saving, and over time he hopes to boost investment through corporate tax cuts and infrastructure projects. So it’s hard to see how these policies can do anything other than make the U.S. current account deficit even larger. 

There is too much focus on who is “winning” the various trade wars between the United States and our trading partners, and too little examination of what these trade wars are supposed to achieve. The most frequently cited objectives (like fewer foreign trade barriers against our exports) would help the average American but accelerate the pace of creative destruction in some parts of America’s industrial heartland. In addition, there is little evidence that our current strategy would do anything to reduce the overall trade deficit.

Scott Sumner is an emeritus professor of economics at Bentley University and director of the Program on Monetary Policy at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The piece is originally published in ‘THE HILL’


  1. The one flaw in your reasoning: NAFTA (& conventional “free trade”) is not “free”, it’s lop-sided to the advantage of several other countries & to our disadvantage. FAIR trade is free trade. Trump’s moves & rhetoric on trade are all in sync with that, so if you unserstand that conventional wisdom has nothing to do with truly free trade, & that the term “free trade” is a cover label for globalist trade tilted in favor of other countries & at our expense, & that it’s in the interests of those countries (& americans who think warm fuzzy feelings from those countries via appeasement are more important than protecting our own interests as a nation) to push forvwhat ammounts to FAKE free trade. Trump’s merelt working towards the real thing, & for real free trade to exist there needs to be a level of fairness & lack of tariffs. If in rhe meantime other countries want to resist our efforts to achieve free trade with unfair trade practices Trump’s attitude is, two can play that game & if we have to we will. If they don’t like our tariffs they can lower theirs. If not, we impose tariffs to match theirsbuntilnor unless theirs go away. They drop their tariffs we’ll drop ours. Simple as that. Hopefully that clears up any confusion you might have regarding Trump’s trade ‘doctrine’, approach, and intentions.

    • Hi Jack,
      First of, thanks for visiting and following my blog. Most appreciated man! Thanks also for your insight re:“free trade”. My question though is: how did it happen then that “free trade” became ‘lop-sided to the advantage of several other countries’; and not the U.S.A.? I’ve always thought or imagined that economically the U.S.A. has grand competitive advantage over many countries if not all. It is the superpower not only militarily but also economically. Here are the reasons:
      ~The U.S. economy is the largest and most productive in the world
      ~U.S. is a magnate for foreign investors
      ~America has the top global brands
      ~The U.S. is the world leader in technology
      ~America has the world’s best colleges
      ~ The Green bag/ U.S. dollar is king
      ~America is in the middle of an energy Renaissance
      ~The U.S. leads the world in manufactured goods

      In light of these and many more key economic strengths, it is the case that America has economic competitive advantage over other world economies. I’m yet to be convinced that other countries take advantage of the U.S.A. as far as trade and globalization is concerned.

      But I agree with you on another level. For globalization to be successful the all trade barriers i.e. tariffs need to discarded.

      I hope I’ve not missed the point altogether; but please feel free to advance the discourse on this topic; for I enjoyed reading your informative comment.

      Thanks again for liking my posts and God Bless!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.