Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
Tariffs on Chinese Goods Increase Prices for Americans
The Trump administration announced that a 25 percent tariff on up to $34 billion worth of Chinese goods will be imposed on July 6 on the grounds that Beijing has participated in intellectual copyright theft. The White House will seek an additional $16 billion in tariffs to be applied at a later date. China has already pledged retaliatory tariffs covering over 600 U.S. goods worth $50 billion.
Along with intensifying tensions with Beijing, these tariffs could derail plans for China to purchase more U.S. agricultural and energy products. If the tariffs are implemented, American consumers and business owners will see prices rise as the tariffs get added to intermediate goods like aircraft tires, turbines, and cell phone components. The expense will work its way through to retail prices for goods like cars, dishwashers, and cell phones. And, ultimately, it won’t be Chinese companies who pay the price, but rather American manufacturers, who will pass the cost through to their customers and shareholders.
While these tariffs are touted as protecting American businesses and workers, in reality they are protecting some workers at the expense of others. Moreover, they protect sunset industries where our comparative advantage has dwindled, trapping labor and capital resources that would otherwise be devoted to innovating new products and industries. This is how America prospers: we innovate, change the rules of the game, produce something new, and make others run to keep up.
In addition to the effects on the domestic economy, these tariffs have embarked us on a confrontation with China that is going to be increasingly difficult for either party to back down from. The U.S. has legitimate grievances and our objectives are appropriate, but there is strong reason to ask whether the tactical approach we are using is the best possible way to carry out the confrontation.
China is a manufacturing power, and there is no doubt that China has taken advantage of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules to access global markets, while keeping its own market closed. This neo-mercantilist policy, combined with China’s state-led development model, has flooded the global market with subsidized Chinese products.
These abuses of the WTO rules by China demand a response, and strong American leadership can and should play a central role. An actionable response would be:
- Use the tools of the WTO to call China out on its failures to make good on its commitments to curb subsidies and reduce barriers to foreign goods and services. In this effort, we would have many potential allies: the European Union, Japan, and Canada, to name a few. In contrast, our current approach, which violates commitments we have made to our WTO partners, has aligned the Europeans, Canadians, and Japanese with the Chinese against us.
- Give ourselves new tools to discipline Chinese behavior, by negotiating commitments with China’s neighbors and other major trading partners that would further limit the possibility of mischief through state-owned enterprises, currency manipulation, forced transfer of IPR, and interference in e-commerce and other services where the U.S. has a clear competitive advantage. Staying in the Trans-Pacific Partnership would have been a huge step toward accomplishing this.
- Focus Chinese attention on the urgent need to address its free-ridership by levying tariffs on Chinese products targeted to hit Chinese leaders in the pocketbook.
A strategy like this would certainly succeed. After all, by any objective measure, China is hardly a strong competitor of the United States. The George W. Bush Institute’s analysis of global competitiveness shows that China is nowhere near the U.S. by any measure: business environment, legal system, investment environment, macroeconomic stability, trade policy, even health, and education.
At the end of the day, China appears to be a redoubtable competitor only because it has a very large population. Our playbook of an open economy, driven by consumer choice, buttressed by broad capital markets and focused on innovation, quite frankly works better– if we can only follow our own plays.
By imposing tariffs and escalating tensions with China we are only raising prices for American families and are unlikely to produce a real change in Chinese behavior.
Matthew Rooney joined the Bush Center in June 2015 following a career as a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department of State. At postings in Washington and abroad, he focused on advocating market-driven solutions to economic policy challenges in both industrialized and developing countries, and on protecting the interests of U.S. companies abroad.
In Washington, Rooney was on loan to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to create a high-level private sector advisory body for the Summits of the Americas, working closely with the U.S. private sector and with companies and business associations from throughout the Americas to negotiate an agenda to promote economic integration in the region. Previously, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for relations with Canada and Mexico and for regional economic policy. In prior Washington assignments, Rooney worked for then-Senator Fred Thompson, and supported negotiations to open global markets to U.S. airline services.
Abroad, Rooney was Consul General in Munich, a Consulate General providing a full range of Consular and export promotion services, supporting a permanent presence of 30,000 U.S. forces in two major base complexes, and carrying out a media and public relations initiative in support of U.S. diplomatic objectives in Germany. As Counselor for Economic and Commercial Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador, El Salvador, he laid the groundwork for free trade negotiations between the United States and the five countries of Central America, and promoted market-based reforms for electrical power. Prior to this, he served in various posts in Germany, Gabon and Côte d’Ivoire.
Rooney studied Economics, German and French at the University of Texas at Austin and received his Master’s Degree in International Management at the University of Texas at Dallas.Full Bio
Two-Minute Take: NAFTA vs. USMCA
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement makes substantial changes to modernize trade rules in effect from 1994. What are these modifications and what do they mean for Americans?
El Paso del Norte, A Cross-Border Community
Reporting on their recent trip to El Paso, Matthew Rooney, managing director of the Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative, and William McKenzie, editorial director of the Bush Institute, explain why El Paso del Norte points to both the challenges and potential benefits of the close relationship between the United States and Mexico.
Executive Trade Policy Authority: A Threat to America’s Global Leadership on Trade
Congress could start clawing back trade policy authority that it has long delegated to the president.