Since the advent of Trump the New York Times has gone all in for defending the meritocracy status quo. Partof the duty is taken up in defense of global trade. It’s all good. Tariffs are bad.
Today the newspaper delivers a ‘splainer that’s part of the effort in Who Wins and and Who Loses if Trump Puts up Trade Walls:
This [tariff installing] approach could result in higher barriers to imports that would end America’s decades-long status as the world’s most open large economy. This could lead to slightly higher prices in the United States for everything from Chilean grapes to iPhones to gasoline. But it could also provide a boost to companies and workers who make things in the United States and sell them abroad.
Heavens, more expensive iPhones! And Chilean grapes! I know for a fact grapes are grown in California. I’ve seen them!
The Times goes to great lengths to show that trade is good even though it has done bad things to the American worker. Unfortunately, the Times’ own illustrations mostly refutes its approach. The trade deficit is shown as hu-u-u-ge with China. And getting worse. China is, unlike this country, protectionist. It uses value added taxes on imports to protect its own manufacturing base, something the US does not do.
Economist Dean Baker has spent most of the last twelve months soundly debunking the NYT establishment line. And he did it again this week here:
The extraordinary plunge in manufacturing jobs in the years 2000 to 2007 was due to the explosion of the trade deficit … It is incredible how acceptable it is for our elites to lie about trade rather than deal with the issue candidly. “
“This level of dishonesty separates trade out from most other areas of public debate,” Baker states flatly.
You know what I think.