elmundo.es
US Protectionism: Rising Tariffs Despite Negative Employment Effects
The 2016 election of Donald Trump initiated a return to US protectionism, increasing tariffs despite studies showing that previous tariffs failed to boost employment and led to retaliatory tariffs; however, public support for tariffs remains high due to the disproportionate impact of perceived job losses.
- What are the immediate economic consequences of the increased protectionist measures implemented during Trump's presidency, and how do these consequences impact global trade dynamics?
- In 2016, Donald Trump's election marked a resurgence of US protectionism, reversing a trend of declining tariffs since the 1930s. His first term saw the first tariff increase since the mid-1980s, but new threats targeting Canada, Mexico, and China promise even higher tariffs, potentially reaching the highest level in a century. Economic efficiency isn't a driving factor; studies show disappointing employment effects from prior tariffs.
- How do the perceived benefits and drawbacks of free trade influence American voters' support for protectionist policies, and what role do economic studies play in shaping these perceptions?
- Research by David Autor et al. demonstrates that Trump's initial tariffs failed to boost US employment, while retaliatory tariffs from other countries negatively impacted US employment, albeit slightly. This, coupled with the regressive nature of tariffs as a consumption tax, raises questions about their widespread support.
- What are the long-term implications of this shift towards protectionism for the US economy and global trade, considering the potential for retaliatory measures and the uneven distribution of gains and losses from free trade?
- While most US citizens believe free trade increases product variety and lowers prices, this positive perception doesn't translate into support for free trade policies. Conversely, the perceived risk of job displacement strongly correlates with opposition to free trade, highlighting the disproportionate influence of potential losses.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the debate in a way that emphasizes the negative consequences of protectionism, highlighting studies that show its inefficacy. While acknowledging that most citizens believe trade offers more advantages, the framing heavily leans towards the negative impacts and lack of public support for free trade policies.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but phrases such as "decepcionante" (disappointing) and "creciente desafección" (growing discontent) subtly convey a negative tone towards protectionist policies. The use of the word "amenazas" (threats) to describe new tariffs is also loaded. More neutral alternatives could be used, such as "unforeseen economic consequences", "increased trade tensions", or "potential economic challenges".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative consequences of tariffs and the public perception of trade, but it omits discussion of potential benefits of protectionist policies, such as national security or the protection of domestic industries. It also doesn't explore alternative economic viewpoints or policies beyond free trade vs. protectionism.
False Dichotomy
The analysis presents a false dichotomy by primarily focusing on free trade versus protectionism, without considering the nuances of different trade policies or the possibility of finding a middle ground.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the negative impacts of protectionist trade policies on employment in the US. Increased tariffs did not lead to increased employment, and retaliatory tariffs from other countries even had a small negative effect on US employment. This directly contradicts the goal of decent work and economic growth, highlighting job losses and economic stagnation as consequences of protectionism.