By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, July 24, 2016
On Friday, I listened to a brief lecture on the unhappy
history of Detroit, told from the familiar anti-capitalist point of view:
Because international trade is a merciless race to the bottom, the
Detroit-based automobile industry could not compete with foreign rivals absent
some degree of intervention from the U.S. government. Instead, the U.S.
government pursued free-market policies, which resulted in the municipal
ruination of Detroit and the impoverishment of its people.
That didn’t come from the ghost of Howard Zinn. It came
from Sean Hannity.
It’s a goofy and illiterate critique, but one that has
been popular on the left for decades. Now, the Right is taking up the
anti-capitalist cause with at least equal fervor, in thrall to one of the
dopiest iterations of nationalism since Venezuela nationalized the toilet-paper
business.
We should start with the obvious. The usual argument for
protecting U.S. industries from foreign competition — that they cannot be
expected to compete with low-wage labor in awful Third World countries — does
not do very much to explain the travails of U.S. carmakers, who were not
challenged by sweatshop-made products from Pakistan and Haiti. Instead, they
got their lunches eaten in the 1970s and 1980s by the same firms that trouble
them today, which are based in relatively high-wage countries such as Germany,
Japan, and, more recently, the Republic of Korea.
It’s true that Germany and Japan have slightly lower
median household and equivalent adult incomes than does the United States, but
not by an amount that gives overseas automakers an enormous competitive
advantage. And this is complicated by the fact that German autoworkers are paid
more than their U.S. equivalents, rather than less. (As always, the
facts on the ground are complicated.) Japan does not use tariffs to keep
U.S. goods out of its markets: It charges no
duties at all on U.S. vehicles. The European Union and the United States
have relatively modest import duties (typically 10 percent and 2.5 percent,
respectively), and eliminating those is a key goal for supporters of a U.S.-EU
free-trade pact. Trump — and now those who follow him — generally opposes such
free-trade pacts, even though in this case such a deal would be a step toward
the so-called level playing field that the anti-traders insist on.
The fact is that playing fields never are level. Germany
is full of Germans, and the United States is not. Germany has a top
corporate-income tax rate of just under 30 percent; the United States has a top
rate of just under 40 percent. But the tax codes are very different and
liabilities are calculated in different ways. Germany has very powerful
automotive unions, but they are very different from their corrupt and
ineffective U.S. equivalents. Germany has a very different education system,
and it is the dominant economic power in the world’s second-largest free-trade
association, second in size only to NAFTA. But, again, the facts are a little more
complicated: The United States accounts for about 85 percent of NAFTA’s
economy: Canada isn’t that big, and Mexico isn’t that rich. Germany accounts
for only about 20 percent of the European Union economy, meaning that Germany’s
free-trade zone gives it richer opportunities for trade than ours does us.
Those export opportunities have helped Germany grow
wealthy, even taking into account the heavy costs imposed by the reabsorption
of the former German Democratic (ho, ho!) Republic, which was immiserated by
Communist rule. Funny thing about those Commies, though: They talked a good
game about fairness and reducing inequality and giving workers a democratic
voice in the management of industries, but in practice what such regimes
practiced was exactly the same crude and stupid economic nationalism that Trump
preaches and that has caught the imaginations of our talk-radio ranters and
various rent-seeking corporate toadies and union bosses. From the old Soviet
Union to its East German satellite to Fidel Castro’s Cuba and the so-called
democratic socialists of Venezuela, the hallmark of such economic strategies is
the centralization of political power and the subordination of economic
activity to it. The enemy, always, is free trade. East Germany’s actual
economic strategy, as contemporary research from the Library of Congress
reported, “emphasized heavy industry and a trade-denial policy bordering on
autarky.”
Trump’s personal and professional life may bring to mind
Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian billionaire and politician who, like Donald
Trump and his sex-offender pal Jeffrey Epstein, has a taste for women “on the
younger side.” But Trump’s economic philosophy is closer to that of Hugo
Chávez: putting private economic choices under political discipline in order to
keep dirty foreigners from exploiting us poor, defenseless serfs, who have only
our lords to protect us.
Trump, as it turns out, prefers European
and British-made cars. One sympathizes with the horrible exploitation
suffered by all those Mercedes-Benz drivers.
Germany has thrived by entering into a free-trade deal
with many wealthy countries. The United States has thrived with NAFTA, too, but
NAFTA provides us with free access only to one small wealthy country and one
middle-income country. The sensible approach would be to pursue a free-trade
arrangement with wealthy and up-and-coming Pacific powers, if only such a thing
were on offer, to say nothing of a post-Brexit United Kingdom, the European
Union, and, if we wanted to be truly forward-looking, India.
Instead, our so-called conservatives are rallying behind
a gold-leafed Hugo Chávez. One suspects that they will come to regret this.
No comments:
Post a Comment