برچسب: Nothing

  • Paul Krugman: Trump Understands Nothing About Tariffs

    Paul Krugman: Trump Understands Nothing About Tariffs


    Trump has an almost mystical view about tariffs. He thinks that they are a payment that a country makes to the U.S. in return for selling their products here. He thinks that the U.S. will collect so many billions in tariff payments that the government can keep cutting taxes. He doesn’t understand that the cost of tariffs is paid first by American retailers, but ultimately by consumers. Tariffs mean higher prices for everything that is imported.

    He apparently never learned in high school about the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930, which led to retaliation and ultimately contributed to the Great Depression.

    Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has some lessons for Trump. Given Trump’s belief in his own great intellect, it’s doubtful that he’s interested in learning anything new.

    Krugman writes:

    Many investors seem to have deluded themselves into believing that Trump was done disrupting world trade, and some economists, myself included, were hoping that we wouldn’t keep having to write about stupid, feckless trade policy. But here we go again.

    By now we were supposed to have scores of trade deals signed. Instead… Trump began posting letters on Truth Social (diplomacy!) telling a variety of countries that they would face high tariffs on Aug. 1. The first two letters were to South Korea and Japan, both told that Trump would put a 25 percent tariff on all their exports. Some countries are facing even higher tariffs. Overall, the tariff rates announced so far look very close to the widely ridiculed Liberation Day tariffs announced on April 2.

    Honestly, I’ve written so much about tariffs that it’s hard to find new things to say. But let me offer a few notes on where we seem to be now.

    These tariffs are really, really high

    One way to look at the newly announced tariffs is in the light of history. The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 pushed the average tariff rate to about 20 percent. So far every country that has received a letter will be facing rates higher than that.

    Another way to look at it to ask how much we would expect these tariffs to reduce trade. The key number is the elasticity of substitution in world trade — the percent fall in imports caused by a one percent rise in import prices. The median estimate from many studies is 3.8, which implies that in the long run 25 percent tariffs will reduce trans-Pacific trade by almost 60 percent. That’s a lot.

    Side note: If I were a government employee, this post would probably be flagged for DEI because I just used the word “trans.”

    There were never going to be genuine trade deals

    These tariffs are going to hurt South Korea and Japan, although they’ll hurt U.S. consumers even more. So why didn’t Korean and Japanese negotiators make big enough concessions to satisfy Trump?

    Because there was nothing for them to concede. South Korea has had a free trade agreement with the United States since 2012, so most U.S. exports to Korea face zero tariffs. Japan, like other wealthy nations, has very low tariffs on most goods. Neither country, then, was in a position to offer big tariff reductions, because their tariffs were already minimal.

    Here’s part of Trump’s letter to South Korea, alleging that the country’s “Tariff, and Non Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers” are responsible for the bilateral trade imbalance:

    Notice that Trump offered no specifics — because there aren’t any. How were the South Koreans supposed to end unfair trade practices that exist only in Trump’s imagination?

    Here’s an analogy that occurred to me: Imagine that you have a belligerent neighbor who threatens to take revenge unless you stop dumping trash on his lawn. You reply, truthfully, that you aren’t dumping trash on his lawn. His response is to accuse you of being intransigent and slash your car’s tires.

    The only possible out here would be a series of fake deals, in which countries pretend to have offered significant concessions and Trump claims to have won big victories. Some people still think that will happen — the new tariffs aren’t supposed to take effect until Aug. 1. But the tone of those letters and Trump’s clear obsession with tariffs make me doubt that he’ll call the tariffs off, in part because of my last observation: Attempts to mollify Trump always end up emboldening him to demand more.

    Why make a deal with a man who will surely break it?

    As I already mentioned, South Korea and the United States have had a free trade agreement (KORUS) since 2012. This agreement wasn’t some vague memorandum of understanding. It was the result of years of tough negotiation, followed by intense political debate in both countries before our respective legislatures passed the enabling legislation.

    Yet Trump is simply ignoring that hard-won agreement. His letter to the South Koreans doesn’t even mention KORUS, let alone explain why the United States is reneging on its solemn promises.

    Japan doesn’t have a free trade agreement with the United States. But it does have Most Favored Nation status, which means that under international trade law it is entitled to face tariffs no higher than those America committed to under the last major global trade agreement, the Uruguay Round that concluded in 1994. Again, these tariff commitments weren’t embodied in some casual memorandum. They were the result of years of negotiation, whose results had to be approved by Congress.

    And again Trump isn’t even trying to explain why he’s going back on a longstanding U.S. commitment.

    The point is that Trump doesn’t feel bound by trade deals America has made in the past. Why should anyone expect him to honor any new deals he makes, or claims to make, now?

    Obviously this behavior isn’t unique to tariffs. Many domestic institutions, from law firms to universities, have discovered that attempting to appease Trump buys you at best a few weeks’ respite before he comes back for more.

    It’s possible that the governments receiving Trump’s tariff letters haven’t figured that out yet. But they will. And my bet is that the TACO people — Trump always chickens out — are wrong in this case. I’ll be happy to be proved wrong, but right now it looks as if deeply destructive tariffs are really coming.



    Source link

  • ‘Nothing about us without us,’ students say as they head to polls

    ‘Nothing about us without us,’ students say as they head to polls


    Student-run school board candidates’ forum at Fremont High School on Oct. 22, 2024. 

    Credit: Louis Freedberg / EdSource

    While most attention in the United States is focused on the presidential elections today, I’ll be watching two local school board races that will be historic for a completely different reason. 

    For the first time, young people aged 16 and 17 in Oakland and nearby Berkeley will be voting in school board elections. 

    Although some smaller communities in Maryland have extended a limited vote to a similar age group, Oakland, with a total population of over 400,000, is the largest community in the nation to do so by far.

    The initiative came about as a result of youth organizing that put pressure on their city councils to place measures on the ballot allowing young people aged 16 and over to vote in their local school board elections. Berkeley voters passed a law approving the change in 2017 and Oakland voters in 2020. It has taken years to bring the idea to fruition.

    When I heard about this effort, I was deeply skeptical.

    After all, school board meetings are, for the most part, sleepy affairs — unless there is a controversy that rouses parents and students, like school closures or political battles over curricula, book bans and other hot-button issues.

    It is hard enough to get parents interested in school board politics. It seemed to me even less likely that teenagers would embrace doing so with enough gusto to justify the effort and expense of giving them the vote.

    But after attending a school board candidates’ forum organized by students in Oakland two weeks ago — and speaking to the candidates vying for their votes, I now have a different view.    

    I’m convinced that having young people involved in school board politics and decision-making is more than just a nice idea.

    For one thing, we know that the earlier young people participate in the democratic process, the more likely they are to do so as adults. It is also a powerful way to get young people involved in shaping institutions that affect them profoundly, and which they have intimate knowledge of:  the schools where they spend much of their time during their adolescence.   

    The forum itself was a rousing affair, and ran from 5 to 8 p.m. Six of the seven candidates running for the board showed up for the event. (The seventh was out of the country and sent a representative.) There were 200 students, most of whom stayed until the end of the marathon interrogation. Many wore T-shirts with the slogans, “My Vote Will Make History” on the front and, on the back, “Nothing About Us Without Us.”

    Each candidate had one minute to respond to a set of questions students projected on a screen. If candidates went over the time limit, their microphones were shut off, so the candidates mostly obeyed the rules. And they answered the questions seriously without being patronizing. 

    Oakland school board candidates spoke in front of 200 students at Fremont High School on Oct. 22, 2024.
    Credit: Louis Freedberg / EdSource

    These student voters are arguably going to be a lot more informed than most older ones who may not have been inside a school in years. Many adult voters have only the barest idea about current school concerns or what goes on inside their walls.

    Let’s be honest: With rare exceptions, votes for school boards are typically the last thing many, if not most, voters pay attention to.

    “A lot of adults are making decisions about our schools when they’re not even the ones in the school,” Edamevoh Ajayi, a senior at Oakland Technical High School who has been a leader in the Oakland youth vote project, told me. “So they wouldn’t even know what to change.”

    “At least for students, we haven’t really been welcomed,” she said, referring to district governance in general. “It’s kind of been an adult-led space.”

    It would be one thing if things were going well in their district, and adult leaders had proven themselves. But once again, the district is in crisis as it copes with declining enrollment, poor attendance, a massive budget deficit, and the prospect of having to close or merge schools next year. There is a real chance of a state takeover — a repeat of what happened 20 years ago when the district had to get a $100 million loan from the state to bail it out.

    Getting students’ voices into the mix certainly can’t hurt, and is more likely to help.  That’s in addition to the long-term benefits of getting young people involved in our democracy at an earlier age.  

    As Patrice Berry, a former teacher running for the Oakland school board, told me after facing students at the candidates’ forum, “They’re going to make us better overall.”

    •••

    Louis Freedberg is EdSource’s interim executive director.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

    Related podcast:





    Source link