Reports that Americans are becoming increasingly hostile to trade are greatly exaggerated. The French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP) recently polled people in several countries to compare their attitudes on trade and economics. Asked whether international trade is good for the United States or bad, Americans were 50 percent more likely to answer “good” than “bad.” The U.S. survey found the following opinions: The development of international trade is rather a good thing for our country: 39 percent. The development of international trade is rather a bad thing for our …
Last night’s BCS Championship game pitted the Auburn Tigers from the Southeastern Conference (SEC) against the Oregon Ducks from the Pac-10. To guard against biases that could have influenced the game’s outcome, officials were provided by the Big 10. If football-crazed fans from Auburn and Oregon can understand why referees from the SEC and Pac-10 shouldn’t call the BCS Championship game, surely legislators can understand why investors shouldn’t have to rely on potentially biased officials to mediate international investment disputes. Not everyone sees it that way. Critics of the proposed …
When the Mexican government imposed punitive tariffs last year on $2.4 billion in American products the average Mexican citizen may not have noticed. But no more. Try finding a U.S.-grown Christmas tree in Mexico City this week. They are scarce since Mexico’s usual suppliers of holiday evergreens, growers in the states of California and Oregon, have been priced out of the market by a 20 percent tariff. Oregon potato growers and Washington pear exporters are also singing the Christmas blues. No partridges in American-grown pear trees for Mexico this year. …
When the proposed South Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) was initially signed on June 30, 2007, Heritage Foundation analysts recognized significant benefits that would come from implementation of this landmark trade deal. Those benefits included more exports, more export-related jobs, and a stronger economy. As the Obama Administration has pointed out, the agreement would increase U.S. exports by billions of dollars and create tens of thousands of new export-related jobs. KORUS would also strengthen the U.S. economy by reducing domestic trade barriers that act like a tax on American consumers …
Even in a season characterized by candy canes and cookies waiting for Santa, protectionism, specifically the U.S. sugar program, hurts American consumers and workers. The U.S. sugar program provides a classic example of a special interest group benefiting from political connections, to the detriment of American consumers. The sugar program imposes trade barriers that force American consumers to pay approximately double the world’s sugar price. The jobs “saved” by the program come at a high price. U.S. consumers pay an extra $826,000 for each sugar production job saved. Sugar farmers, …
The economic case for the South Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) has been variously described as a “slam dunk,” a “pareto-optimal solution,” and “an easy ‘yes.’” However, aside from the economic arguments for KORUS, recent events in the Korean peninsula make approval of the agreement more important than ever. On November 23, a North Korean artillery attack on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong Island killed two civilians and two marines. Earlier this month, the country revealed a covert uranium enrichment facility that could be used to strengthen its nuclear …
Following the shocking inability of U.S. and South Korean trade negotiators to reach agreement on changes to a proposed Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), the biggest question was whether the failure was due to a conscious decision by President Obama or to stunning incompetence. However, if negotiators had managed to reach an agreement on President Obama’s terms, the long-run results would have been even worse. If South Korean negotiators had caved in to U.S. demands without receiving any concessions in return, they might have inadvertently undermined the ability of the …
President Barack Obama returned from Asia yesterday, and the headlines greeting him home are not kind. “Obama’s economic view is rejected on world stage,” reads The New York Times; “Obama, weakened after midterms, reveals limited leverage in failed S. Korea deal,” says The Washington Post; and ABC News declares, “President Obama Falls Short on G-20 Goals: Failure to Deliver on Key Trade Goals Reveals Limits of American Influence.” These headlines are only half-right: Yes, President Obama did fail to deliver on his agenda in Asia, but the culprit is not …
20 people with very different backgrounds are unlikely to reach consensus on anything substantial. To forge such a consensus requires leadership. This week’s G-20 meetings produced nothing of substance, which is no surprise because the United States did not lead. First, let’s dispense with the idea that America can’t lead. The American economy is more than one-third larger than the second- and third-largest, China’s and Japan’s, combined. The dollar is the world’s currency. When they get nervous, central bankers all over the globe buy U.S. Treasuries, no matter how low …
This fall the left ran millions of dollars worth of ads demonizing free trade and “foreign money.” Now President Barack Obama is in Asia negotiating the U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS) with South Korea. The case for KORUS should be a slam dunk. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that U.S. exports would increase $10–11 billion annually, if the agreement passed. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that approving the KORUS would lead to an increase of 250,000 jobs, while a failure to enact the agreement would lead to …
