Trump and Biden Both Get Globalization Wrong
Free trade brings us more stuff at lower prices.

Leaders of both parties agree: We must reduce globalization.
"China is ripping us on trade," says Donald Trump.
Our trade deficit is "an immorality," says Nancy Pelosi.
But it's not.
In my new video, Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute points out, "Selling us stuff is hardly ripping us off."
He's right.
Our video debunks common misunderstandings about trade.
Myth No. 1: America is "losing."
People often say that because America runs a trade deficit.
But trade doesn't need to balance. I have a trade deficit with my supermarket. They get more of my money every year. So, what? I don't "lose." I get food without having to grow it myself.
That's a win for me and the food producer regardless of whether the food was grown locally or came from Mexico.
"Imports are great," says Lincicome. "It means I can focus on what I want to do for a living and not go make my own food or make my own clothes. I can use those savings and buy other things that makes me better off."
As long as trade is voluntary, trade is a win for both parties. It has to be; neither side would agree to it unless they think they get something out of the deal.
Myth No. 2: Imports take jobs from Americans.
Globalization "moved so many jobs and so much wealth out of our country," says Trump. "Workers have seen the jobs they love shipped thousands and thousands of miles away."
I say to Lincicome, "Some people do lose jobs."
"True," he replies, "We lose about 5 million jobs every month."
But trade isn't the main reason. "Jobs are lost due to…changing consumer tastes and from innovation. We make more stuff with fewer workers. That's productivity."
Productivity increases are good.
Trade and productivity improvements are reasons why the number of Americans who do have jobs has risen.
"We're at historically high manufacturing job openings," says Lincicome, "Manufacturers in the United States say they can't find enough workers."
Trade lets Americans focus on what we do best. Sixty percent of America's new jobs come from companies engaged in international trade.
But Trump says, "We don't make anything anymore!"
President Joe Biden agrees: "American manufacturing, the backbone of our economy, got hollowed out!"
That's Myth No. 3.
Manufacturing output in the U.S. is near its all-time high. We make more than Japan, Germany, India, and South Korea combined.
Fortunately, real life ignores politicians' ignorance.
Myth No. 4: Trade and open markets create "a race to the bottom."
That's how Jon Stewart decries globalization on his show, saying, "Globalization allowed corporations to scour the planet for the cheapest labor and loosest regulations!"
That is true; companies do that. But Lincicome replies, "This 'race to the bottom' is a myth. We Americans are spoiled. We look upon jobs in the developing world, factory jobs, and say, 'Oh, how terrible this is that these people work for such low wages.' But the reality is that their alternatives are far, far worse…subsistence farming…sex work."
Trade is what lets people in poor countries escape subsistence farming and sex work.
And child labor, too.
"No parent wants his kid to go into the factory or farm," Lincicome points out. "They do it because they have no choice. As we get wealthier, child labor disappears….Factory owners in Vietnam now complain that kids these days…don't want to work in the textile factory. That's not great for that factory owner, but it's great for those workers!"
Myth No. 5: Globalization destroys the environment.
"It's undeniably true that as a nation starts along its development path, that it's going to pollute more," concedes Lincicome. "But as countries get wealthy, they become better environmentally."
Only when people get wealthy enough to think beyond their next meal do we start to care about the environment. It's why pollution is dropping in America and other capitalist countries.
"The best thing that we can do for the developing world is to help countries get rich," says Lincicome. "Globalization is part of that recipe."
Trade is a win-win. It brings us more stuff at lower prices.
The more we trade, the better off we are.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
C’mon sarc! This one’s for you!
Indeed it is. He's one of the last commenters that points out the hypocrisy of the left and the right. Mostly just republican nutjobs here anymore.
Found sarcs sock.
q.e.d.
What we need is liberty. We must prohibit government coercion.
True. The tough part with global trade is dealing with belligerent regimes like China, Russia, Iran, etc.. doing anything to enrich their economies has yielded negative results for us, and most of the world.
Free trade brings us more stuff at lower prices.
Until hostile foreign countries decide to fuck us by not supplying "stuff" we need. We can't rely on our enemies to supply us with vital products and services.
If they are supplying us with vital products and services why would they be enemies?
why would a drug dealer give away free product to school kids?
Dont get me wrong, i agree with the video but there are issues that are sidestepped - like the above point about dependency or vulnerability. Also - not everyone can code, that doesnt make UBI the best thing since sliced bread when the labor market is dislocating less nimble labor.
I guess the real balance to be struck is a leaders obligation to their citizens in the short, medium and long term. In the long term globalization may be nervana. But leaders have to look out for those affected in the short and medium term as well. Perhaps too much so in today's environment but it is an understandable impulse.
why would a drug dealer give away free product to school kids
To be the first person to ever fulfill this 80's myth?
lol
Hey, is it myth or the Costco item promotional model?
😉
Supply chain disruption risk is a liability. We've just been through a major supply chain disruption that raised prices in many industries.
Cmon man. Covid supply chain disruptions were like 4 years ago. Let it go!
Also not mentioned is foreign trade can reduce costs, but anti market actions such as theft also increase costs for domestics. I dont understand why we are asked at times to turn a blind eye to such costs.
The security costs utilized to limit theft dwarfs tariff costs as an example. Those costs get rolled into costs of a product. It is a simplistic view of trade.
Sure you can get cheaper product by buying from someone who steals and resells product. But those products will become more expensive to consumer who dont buy stolen goods. See the additive costs due to shop lifters.
Covid supply chain disruptions were like 4 years ago. Let it go!
Using the experiences of a once-in-a-century global pandemic to craft the ordinary, normal rules of global trade is foolhardy.
It will never happen again!
Once in a century LOL..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic
To be fair, I don’t think western civilization got a nice read on ‘The Great Reset’ dystopian autocratic global green governance novel out of H1N1.
In a world of creativity and substitute goods, that risk is far more theoretical than real.
It also means for American companies to compete they have to pay slave labor wages. Free trade brings down wages. If we stop manufacturing, which happens more and more every year then we rely on service jobs and they don't pay well. If you suggest they pay well most of the country will shout you down.
More frequently companies make more profit than consumers save money.
Free trade should only happen between countries with similar standards of living. We will all end up serfs if we don't. In addition, doing business with communist China is bad business. We might s well sell them military fighters, ships, and missiles instead of just financing it.
Free trade is only free trade if both parties agree to the terms. Once one starts putting his thumb on the scale, it stops being "free". So, yeah, free trade is great in theory, but what we have with places like China is hardly that wonderful, idealistic shite this magazine keeps proposing.
When the Yuan floats freely on the international market, let's talk about this again.
This. Idealism is great. In practice what globalism is is not free trade.
How dare they manipulate their currency and sell us stuff at a lower price?
That’s just not fair. To make it fair we need our government to raise the price of imports from China by taxing them! Tax us more! Tax us more!
Say it with me!
Tax us more! Tax us more!
Everyone together!
Tax us more! Tax us more!
Sarc is a perfect example of why simplified idealistic arguments are harmful.
He will ignore actual facts and evidence to scream put his bumper stickers.
He will never recognize cost shifts done to others from such issues as anti free trade actions or the costs of illegal immigration. Pretebding those costs do not exist.
The irony is he has complained about lowering actual taxes. Arguing we need higher taxes due to the budget deficit or even describing the Laffer curve as a line and casrigsting actual tax cuts.
It is amusing.
That was the chant of the People's Party in 1892. After winning the Civil War, the republican party absolutely gouged Americans with high tariffs so Pittsburgh and Chicago could charge plantation owners more for plows and scythes. But the Communist Manifesto had by 1850 promised a progressive income tax with no mention of tariffs. Brainwashers sold suckers the idea that the communist income tax would entirely replace rather than add to Customs Union tariff exactions. Today's hopeful imagine that if tariffs are abolished, no IRS agent will grab your car, bank account or put you on the street with celebrants of California-Bush asset-forfeiture sharing.
It also means for American companies to compete they have to pay slave labor wages. Free trade brings down wages. If we stop manufacturing, which happens more and more every year then we rely on service jobs and they don't pay well. If you suggest they pay well most of the country will shout you down.
More frequently companies make more profit than consumers save money.
Free trade should only happen between countries with similar standards of living. We will all end up serfs if we don't. In addition, doing business with communist China is bad business. We might as well sell them military fighters, ships, and missiles instead of just financing it.
So, you object to Chinese taxpayers subsidizing lower prices for goods Americans buy. Is that correct?
Nothing you say is ever correct, dude.
Trump and Biden Both Get Globalization Wrong
Everyone always gets globalization wrong. De facto. This is a rather fundamental tenet to both Individualism and Austrian Economics.
People espousing that we should trade more prodigiously with China and or globally as an ideal are clearly hewing more towards a Keynesian notion that there is a global aggregate demand or global economy that should or can be observed (top-down), fostered, and controlled, rather than the notion that there is no global aggregate demand (Exactly how many slaves do you need to power your EV?) to be judged more or less favorably and any global aggregate economy, if it exists at all, can only be glimpsed transiently and/or marveled at from below.
What strikes me about both global trade and immigrant labor issues is that Americans want to have it both ways. Many Americans fall into the group that doesn't want globalization nor immigrant labor, but they also don't want higher prices. Producing items in the US that could be made cheaper in other markets means products will cost more. Wages need to be increased to get Americans to do jobs that immigrants will do for less and this again raises prices. Economic rules the day and there is no getting around the fact that Americans cannot have less global trade/immigrant labor and still have lower prices.
Like sarc, a other useful idiot who pretends there are no associated costs with immigration or anti free market trade.
And that Americans just want higher costs because they really like paying more for things and not that their own leftist political advocacy has overcharged Americans for their education and falsely promised to cover the bill, literally, several generations over.
Trump repealed the economic law of comparative advantage. So importing things that foreigners can make more cheaply now makes us poorer, not richer.
Another example of sarc pretending there are no associated costs.
Fuck you Jesse. Let me put it in all caps so that maybe you will read it this time:
ABSOLUTELY NO ONE HERE HAS SAID THAT THERE ARE NO COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FREE TRADE.
This is a complete and utter strawman.
What we have said, is that while there are costs associated with free trade, the benefits far outweigh the costs.
For example, when low-skill jobs are offshored to developing countries, workers in this country with those low-skill jobs will likely lose their jobs. That is a cost. It is absolutely a cost. But the benefits outweigh the costs in an economic sense.
But even if you put aside the economic arguments, if your proposed remedy for this cost is "stop companies from offshoring jobs", then I would argue that it is not right to impose higher costs on everyone (in the form of artificially raised prices for the goods produced by the domestic low-skill labor) for the sake of a relatively few jobs. In its effect, it is no different than a direct government subsidy to those workers, paid for by taxes the cost of which we all bear.
The grey box is arguing against something I didn't say? Must be a day that ends in y.
My comment was literally about you ignoring costs. So yes.
You're back to pretend-muting again?
POST THE MUTED LIST!
There are no arguments against international free trade that can’t be made against free trade between the states. Different states have their own comparative advantages ranging from the quality of the workforce to the weather to the regulations. Saying that it’s not fair to trade with a country that doesn’t have the same regulatory environment is like saying it’s unfair to Californians to have free trade with West Virginia.
Well that is one dumb non sequitur regarding an argument nobody is making. In fact your assertion is a good example why free trade isn't actually free. Regulatory costs. Thanks dumdum.
free trade isn’t actually free.
OMG you really are a moron. Did you really think that the "free" in "free trade" is supposed to mean "free of all costs whatsoever"? Moron.
He knows that the “free” in free trade means the freedom to trade with people in other political jurisdictions without interference from yours. Even he isn’t that stupid. Which means he’s arguing in bad faith by trying to slip in false premises, like always.
So much wrong here. Lol.
Bookmarked.
Jesse, I don’t fucking care. You’re Lucy and I’m Charlie Brown. Except I’m not going to let you hold the football for me anymore. I’ve wised up. I’ve taken away the temptation to respond to your bad faith arguments and lies. You’ve had your chances. But you’re a fuckstain on unwashed 200 threadcount sheets. Just not worth the trouble.
Sorry Stossel, but you can’t convince anyone in these comments that Trump is wrong. Even saying it is enough for them to hate you forever. Because only leftists say he's wrong.
Who is calling him a leftist dumdum?
So who here hates Stossel exactly? Personally, I consider him one of the top journalists of our era.
Sarc can't comprehend intelligent people don't slavishly agree with every argument they make. But he is too ignorant to generate his own argument so he demands full agreement always.
Poor sarc
Pour, pour Sarc.
Reason is starting to publish more of Stossel’s work. It’s a huge improvement. And none of us hate him. And I don’t need to be in 100% agreement with someone to like them and their work.
He’s not a lying, rageaholic, drunk leftist. Like you.
You know Sarc, I would actually agree with you that Trump is wrong about trade. But you're an ass so fuck you.
So going to take the same simplification of one of Democrats favorite subjects to show the insidiousness of these arguments.
Ask any democrat and they will tell you Medicare for all is cheaper. It alleviates profit and costs. They pay less than market rates. Medicare has to be great! Look at how cheap it is!
Then an honest economist points out Medicare pays 93 percent on the dollar. Not due to cost savings but due to government demand. Hospitals then cost shift this underpayment to private plans adding an additive cost of around 30% to market costs to those not utilizing Medicare. But if we ignore this fact, then of course Medicare is cheaper!
Ironically Stossel has argued against Medicare and government funded Healthcare on these grounds. But for trade many libertarians will ignore the same type of analysis.
So what is the moral of the story here? Free trade is bad because there are costs associated with free trade?
I guess you want the Nirvana Fallacy version of free trade: one in which everyone benefits and no one doesn't.
"Free trade," as condescendingly defined by northern industrial plutocrats, meant the 10% "revenue-only" tariff southern slave-whoppers believed adequate for funding the general government. Taussig argued that with shipping costs running about 10% of cargo value, the revenue tariff gave Yankees a 20% protection rate with which to price-gouge manufactures. Article 1 allows tariffs for the Common Defense, but bars States from setting up customs collections. Southerners voiced few complaints against Antebellum tariffs on cotton textiles. Repealing the 16th Amendment would remove communist party assumptions from discussions of trade and revenue.
So going to take the same simplification of one of Democrats favorite subjects to show the insidipusness of these arguments.
It’s the same as feminism, gay rights, free speech, and the contrast with the RTKBA. If they were really about the economics, the liberty, and any fierce correlations, they’d be real entrepreneurs lecturing the Chinese and the Muslims (and C. Americans and Europeans re: RTKBA) in their home countries. If they thought their words had some critical economic and/or moral value, they would take them to a place where there was a dearth of them. Instead, they lecture us here where, by their own precepts, their lectures are largely worthless. We’re already full up on free speech and shitty simplistic, amateur economic takes, even from Krugman-like experts, thanks.
The reason they don’t go and lecture there is because the world doesn’t operate strictly on their oversimplified economics and it’s cheaper and easier to lie to people who won’t kill you for it than it is to speak the truth to people who will kill you for that.
Again, if they were even half as honest and fervent about their beliefs as they claim to be, there would be talk about gun rights in Mexico or China or elsewhere. There would be serious talk about serious sociopolitical action on women’s or gay rights in Iran. But there isn’t. Because they don’t actually believe in the “free” in front of free speech, free association, or free trade. At best, they advocate for the journalist/propagandist class.
Then irony of the free trade arguments from a globalist perspective is that the argument isn't actually about trade. It is about comparative regulatory costs. There is no resource or industrial technology in China that makes production cheaper. What makes production cheaper is differentiated compliance costs.
Right now compliance costs in the US are huge.
https://nam.org/competing-to-win/cost-of-regulations/
The regulatory costs are cheaper. So much cheaper that regulatory costs plus shipping is less than US regulatory costs for production.
The true debate for global trade should be in regards to regulatory costs imposed by government. If China had the same regulatory costs, their products would cost just as much.
So in my view the globalist are really discussing exploitation of regulatory costs.
Libertarians should be discussing domestic regulation costs instead of ignoring those costs and exploiting other markets. That is my primary issue with the discussion.
Assuming that the cost of controlling their slaves pencils out in their favor, ChiCom slavimg should also be a factor.
I guess you don't get out of your rubber room much to hang around here. I'm for freedom for all of those things everywhere, as is any bona fide Libertarian.
The immediately above is rather plainly evident from the Tucker Carlson interview with Putin. Rather than acknowledging that Tucker got an interview and/or captured a topic and audience that other media outlets had missed or underserved in an actual, impartial free speech, free market Coke vs. Pepsi vs. Dr. Pepper sort of situation, we get the media excoriating Carlson for meeting with Putin, excoriating Putin for not meeting with them, and putting up pictures of their own contractors in Russia and insisting that they’re “real” journalists like a bunch of Disney or Sweet Baby Inc. stooges still trying to convince everyone that fat, ethnically diverse, girlbosses are what people really want to see when they go to see a superhero movie or play video games. Again, we don’t need more paid journalist activist takes from Russia filtered through American media outlets, we’re already pretty full up on domestic paid activist journalists filtered through American media outlets, thanks. If you’re really that hard up about free speech, maybe try a little harder in getting rid of more of the redundant American ones rather than screaming at Greenwald, Weiss, Rogan, and Taibbi.
Thread fail.
"As long as trade is voluntary, trade is a win for both parties."
"Trade is a win-win. It brings us more stuff at lower prices."
"The more we trade, the better off we are."
ALL TRUE. Now why is that only True for 'Globalization' at Reason?
WHERE the F#%@ is the same standard held DOMESTICALLY!
It's like pandering to illegal immigrants. They should get gun-rights but citizens shouldn't???? Same story.
Foreign countries should get 0 production tax but citizens shouldn't...
Foreign countries should get 0 regulations but citizens shouldn't.
Never-mind all those subsidies foreign countries get for shipping.
Reason speaks a good game .... All ONE sided. Foreign favors sided.
They're mostly funded by international corporatists, which is why they had such garbage takes during the height of Covid and turn a blind eye to the costs of illegal immigrant-invader criminals ($2 billion a month in my state alone JUST in spending, far more in others, and at least here we still arrest the murderers without bailing them out... so far - but the blue douchebags want to California and NY us up real soon).
Hence the impending 'pay to keep commenting' policy. Pretty soon it'll be nothing but sockpuppets and suckers here. Townhall and Redstate tried the left wing "pay for our flaming garbage" game with the comments, and now they, too, are always begging for more money, because they lost ad revenue from the freeloaders who certainly weren't going to pay to read garbage faux-conservative Liz-Cheneyesque takes, and replaced it with... nothing. Left wing sites like MSN nobody reads anyway and they often just turn off comments when they know they're going to get pounded on something particularly stupid they say like "free stuff for illegals is a good thing" or "it's only free speech when we agree with it" or "men can be women, you bigot."
Reason has deep-pocketed backers though, so they'll continue on; the only difference is that pretty soon, they'll be screaming into another echo chamber void that people visit less and less.
TL;DR: Reason's backers make bank off of one-sided foreign trade (and by extension, the American consumer). And they're rather put out that the commentariat has noticed and pointed it out.
Why not junk U.S. power plants and simply import electricity? Why spend money on oil rigs when we can import all the fuel we'll ever need? Why even keep the Constitutional armed forces? Anarco-communists infiltrating the LP assure us we can hire foreign mercenaries to protect us from surprise attacks.
(Puh-leez! Let's not always see the same hands raised...)
The US does import electricity from both Canada and Mexico.
So there! Let the Econazis and Dems completely outlaw energy conversion in These States and, by their lights, all three countries "would" be transported into the a Utopia heretofore only dreamt of by Robespierre, Marx, Bellamy, Howells, Bakunin, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Ask anyone Chase Oliver debated at the Free & Equal shindig.
Except for the environmentalists who won't let the power company build transmission lines from Quebec to Massachusetts.
John, once again you are preaching to the choir. Those of us who read articles on Reason already know this, and even the elite Socialist intellectuals who created the myths you keep debunking know that they’re perpetrating myths as they are propounding them. The myths are part of a narrative that is intentionally ignoring facts and truth to achieve a higher “truth” (i.e. “lying’) that relies on perceptions of fairness. The intelligentsia don’t care what you say, John. Your turn to be canceled – again – is upcoming …
I think you are targeting your scorn at the wrong people. My recollection is that the intelligentsia support trade agreements like the TTP. Hillary Clinton's support of TTP was targeted by both Bernie Sander and Donald Trump. It is the far left and far right populist movements that are for trade restrictions. They understand there are trade-offs but the benefits outweigh the costs.
And here I thought we were talking about free trade not managed trade.
Comrade, don’t you know? Your only freedom is the chains of socialism which bind us all.
When your ready to talk DOMESTIC 'free trade' let us know.
Until then your preaching is just favoring a certain sector for 'free trade' and being bigoted about Trump. Course you leftard make a political religion out of Trump and the Right as-in you all the sudden go 'free trade' as soon as it give you chance to de-stain Republicans/Trump.
Trump did by-far more to promote DOMESTIC free trade than any recent Democrat and everyone knows it. The left has never been recognized as the 'free trade' party.
Now, there is one point on the opposite side that does need better addressing by Libertarian Free Traders: Slave labor, IP espianage, and counterfeits from Red China are indeed a problem…
But I say these problems are also all the more reason for U.S. politicians to not put a “pause” on AI and automation. Home-grown Luddite tyranny is the problem here and AI and automation may be the keys to really “Making America Great Again.”
It also means for American companies to compete they have to pay slave labor wages. Free trade brings down wages. If we stop manufacturing, which happens more and more every year then we rely on service jobs and they don't pay well. If you suggest they pay well most of the country will shout you down.
More frequently companies make more profit than consumers save money.
Free trade should only happen between countries with similar standards of living. We will all end up serfs if we don't. In addition, doing business with communist China is bad business. We might s well sell them military fighters, ships, and missiles instead of just financing it.
The "free trade no matter what" agreement ignores a basic tenet of economics class: opportunity cost.
Hollowing out your own country's manufacturing for cheap foreign goods means you are not producing anything of lasting VALUE anymore. Services are consumed immediately, whereas a country that makes STUFF (that lasts) is adding and more importantly *preserving* value.
But if you have to buy all your stuff from cheaper foreign vendors, even if they don't eventually bend you over a barrel (and they will!), what value are you using to buy it with? Well, now you're using your INFLATED FIAT MONEY that is losing value, because nothing left in your own country *has* any lasting tangible value anymore!!
Foreign trade + planned obsolescence = cash flow for globalists while you get poorer and poorer in the long run. Sure, the politicians will blame those "greedy rich," but nothing ever really changes, other than to entrench the largest, capturd players even further. Covid shutdowns, $20+/hr minimum wage, not prosecuting shoplifters and other criminals... all designed to put the little guy out of business while the big guys absorb the costs (because economies of scale are a thing).
And that's not even getting into the morality of buying from places with sweatshop and slave labor conditions. Remember, if you allow someone to be treated poorly, then YOU very likely could be treated poorly in that SAME way later. Example: people used to look the other way when police brutality was just against inner city thugs, but now, oopsie! The state is now heavily militarized against any and all dissidents.
Short term you save a few bucks on foreign trade. Long run, everyone's a bankrupt serf except the richest and most powerful people. Trump is an obnoxious orange baboon, but he has just enough business sense to understand some of this instinctually, repeal ridiculous regulations, and start bringing value creation (rather than value destruction) back to America. Xiden and the Demsheviks pretend to be the people's friend while they and their allies nickel and dime the people over EVERY last thing. Not to mention that leftists are locusts who hollow out and destroy everything they touch. Detroit is just one example.
If all of this is true, why aren’t American Indian nations (reservations) booming? Technically these are sovereign nations inside the USA.
Why aren’t American manufacturers building factories to employ real Americans?
Most American Indian reservations vitally need good paying jobs.
why aren’t American Indian nations (reservations) booming?
Because they're drunk.
The ones that are members of tribes that use a welfare system to tend to be, the ones that don’t typically have much less problem in that area.