Monday, August 4, 2008

How to Make America Stronger

The failure of the Doha round talks last week is one sign among many that the conventional reciprocal concession approach to trade liberalization is becoming ineffectual. With so many issues on the agenda and so many countries involved, it may now be impossible to reach any meaningful agreement to substantially reduce trade barriers. Perhaps the time is ripe for a new approach.

If the American Presidential candidates are sincere about making a true break from the past and if they truly want America to shine as an example worthy of emulation then here is one idea worth considering.

American Unilateral Trade Liberalization

Rather than enduring the endless discussions of "we'll give you a little , if you give us a little (i.e., liberalization)" perhaps it is time for America to lead by example. By announcing a plan for a gradual transition to complete free trade, over perhaps the next five years, the US could disengage from the entire negotiation process. We might immediately announce zero barriers on all goods coming from the least developed countries, (despite GSP and other trade concessions to the LDCs, we continue to maintain barriers on agricultural and textile products from many countries). These changes would induce substantial adjustment in some sectors and admittedly many businesses will disappear. But, as they do, new businesses will appear. And these new businesses will capture some of the new markets in this dynamic and ever changing world.

The one feature about the future that all should be able to accept is that it will be significantly different from the present. How it will differ no one knows. But for a country to be economically successful in this environment, it must get used to continual change and be prepared to adjust. Indeed the more we practice and endure economic adjustments, the better our businesses and workers will be at it.

But what about the unfair trade policies that US competitors will keep in place? What should we do about that? The answer; adjust to them. The US economy is the largest most innovative and dynamic economy in the world. If we want it to remain an economic superpower then we should respond to foreign economic practices with a "bring it on" kind of attitude. If foreign governments subsidize certain export products, then let's buy up the cheaper goods and produce something else. If a country maintains a low valued exchange rate, then let businesses adjust to the prevailing prices and produce something else. If foreign countries repond and remove their own protections, then US firms should adjust to fill void. - Jack be nimble, Jack be quick. - If we establish an economy that thrives on adjustment, then the US will weather any economic storm, including the competitive pressures that will surely come from China, India and others.

Tony Blair, the former prime minister of Great Britain, once did an excellent job describing the appropriate worker and societal attitudes that are necessary to maintain a strong vibrant economy when he said,
“The character of this changing world is indifferent to tradition, unforgiving of frailty, no respecter of past reputations. It has no custom and practice. It is replete with opportunities, but they only go to those swift to adapt, slow to complain, open, willing and able to change. Unless we “own” the future, unless our values are matched by a completely honest understanding of the reality now upon us and the next about to hit us, we will fail. ... in the era of rapid globalization, there is no mystery about what works — an open, liberal economy, prepared constantly to change to remain competitive."

Blair's, "slow to complain" remark is consistent with Phil Gramm's concern that the US has become a nation of whiners. Complaining about foreign trade or wage or exchange rate practices, and forcing foreign countries into countless discussions about what they need to do to make us better off are not the actions of a strong leader. Rather they are the actions of a giant who feels threatened of being toppled.

But, to achieve anything as radical as a proposal to move to unilateral fee trade, requires a leader who is willing and able to present a vision of a future America that is based on strength, resilience, nimbleness and sacrifice. These are characteristics that are needed to make unilateral free trade a winning strategy. And these are the characteristics most Americans would be proud to rally around.

Now if we can only find a leader who can be so inspirational. I confess I haven't seen it in this election.

3 comments:

Sam Clam said...

It's a shame this is such a tough sell politically.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts--I always enjoy reading them.

Anonymous said...

Can you provide a little pro forma modeling before we embark on this great journey of yours, "Bring it on" is a little too hubris tinged and not proper analysis; more facts, less chest thumping, please.

Given your plan, what does the US look like after the 5 year gradual implementation, what about years 6-10 and so on?

Steve Suranovic said...

The analysis is coming. I am just now finishing a book tentatively titled, "A Moderate Compromise: Policy Choice in an Era of Globalization"

One thing the book will emphasize though is that prediction of the future is impossible. That's because the path will be determined by individual agents using local information, rather than by government using macro info.

Of course, embarking on a path without knowing where you'll end up is unnerving for many. It's much like Christopher Columbus going off to discover the new world. Many naysayers at the time predicted he would fall off the edge of the earth. The same is true today for anyone proposing complete free trade.

One thing that should follow 6-10 years out though, is an economy that is both more vibrant and more productive but also more uncertain and anxious. There are two keys to success in such an environment. First, people need to become more comfortable with anxiety and use it to stimulate positive action. Second, a freely trading economy guarantees the widest opportunities for everyone; it does not guarantee the best outcome for everyone. Thus, we need a way to protect those individuals who fall through the cracks. It is possible for an open market to be compassionate, however, that compassion needs to be implemented in a way that does not inhibit the positive behavioral features of the system.

More on how to do all this will be in the book.