“Trade War with Canada: The Apex of Stupidity” by Jerry Haar

The Hill
June 8, 2018

 

Trade War with Canada: The Apex of Stupidity

Jerry Haar

Lamenting the unequal and contentious relationship between his country and the United States, the 19th-century Mexican president Porfirio Díaz remarked: “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.” Take out “Mexico” and insert “Canada,” and no doubt that you will be reading the mind of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today.

It is sad, infuriating and ironic that our closest friend and ally is the target of The Troublesome Trio of Trade Protectionism—Trump, Ross, and Navarro—in their quest to erase the U.S. trade deficit. The administration’s justification for their actions, citing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, is “national security,” with allowable tariff increases aimed primarily at steel and aluminum imports from Canada. (Of course, Canada is as much a threat to our national security as Monaco, Zimbabwe, or Albania.)

If there is one nation that is the least deserving of the Trump administration’s protectionist wrath it is Canada.

The size, scope, and depth of the U.S.-Canada commercial relationship alone make a trade war with our northern neighbor the apex of stupidity. To begin with U.S. merchandise and services trade with Canada, our second largest trade partner after China, exceeded $675 billion in 2017 yielding a surplus—not a deficit—of over $8.5 billion. The U.S. exports more to Canada than to China, Japan, and the U.K. combined. Trade in services alone yielded a surplus of $26 billion, with the entire trade relationship producing over 2 million jobs for Americans (9 million if direct and indirect trade and investment jobs are counted). Moreover, jobs tied to trade with Canada are in sectors such as motor vehicles, machinery, electrical equipment, and plastics—all well-paying employment. And let’s not forget that Canada is the second largest investor in the U.S. after the U.K., with equity investments of over $453 billion.

The president whines about bad trade deals and unfair competition from other nations but seems oblivious to the fact that the U.S. is not a paragon of virtue in that regard. The U.S. maintains high tariffs on politically sensitive products such as peanuts, light trucks, wool sweaters, tuna and dairy products and subjects imports to tariffs that are higher than those of a number of other nations such as Japan, Canada, and Australia. At the same time the federal government provides scores of subsidies to the private sector on goods and services, especially on farm products such as sugar; employs non-tariff barriers; limits foreign bidding on government contracts; and restricts investment from abroad in certain sectors such as transportation, communications, defense, natural resources, and energy.

Our relationship with our northern neighbor transcends commerce. To decouple trade from our other relationships with Canada is naïve and foolhardy. Canada has been the most loyal of all U.S. allies. Defense and security relations between the two countries are longstanding, well-entrenched and highly successful Canada’s role in NATO, NORAD, the Global Coalition for Counter ISIL, and shedding blood and treasure in the war in Afghanistan, not to mention collaboration in the war on terrorism and transnational crime through sharing intelligence, along with border and law enforcement cooperation, make our neighbor to the north an indispensable partner. Could anyone blame Canada if it decides to pull back from such cooperative arrangements?

Almost 400,000 people and $2 billion worth of goods and services cross our border with Canada every day. As Steve Blank and I wrote in Making NAFTA Work twenty years ago, the North American business environment is one of continuous, dynamic integration of production, services, supply chains, talent and consumer markets. Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. all produce components, sub-assembly, and final assembly crossing borders multiple times to serve customers in all three markets. Over 67% of the components of a Ford Taurus assembled in Mexico are produced by American workers with the final product shipped to the U.S. and booked as a Mexican export to the U.S.

To attempt to cure a trade deficit by imposing tariffs did not work in 1933 with the Smith-Hawley Act (in fact, it prolonged the Depression) and will not work now. There are many reasons for trade deficits, not just unfair practices. Most common are an imbalance in a nation’s savings and investment rates, a bigger government budget deficit (due to more federal spending or a huge tax cut), and a growing economy that allows people to spend more on imported goods along with greater access to credit and lower credit rates which fuel consumption.

Prime Minister Trudeau has stated that in its trade war with the U.S. Canada will make its arguments based on “logic” and “common sense.” Those are two imports the Trump administration could desperately use.

 

Jerry Haar is a business professor at Florida International University and a global fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.

Trade Tensions Felt in Florida

[Original Story from Jerry Haar of Miami Herald] – What are the costs of picking a fight with our neighbors to the north? The answer may surprise you.

The US recently announced it would levy anti-dumping penalties against Canada. These actions specifically target softwood timber, dairy, and steel. While the full effects are yet to be fully assessed, and opposition has been raised by an unexpected source: Florida.

Continue reading

A New Forecast for U.S. Companies

Wells Fargo Intl Biz Indicator The 2015 International Business Indicator is a survey of 253 executives from U.S. companies with $50 million or more in annual revenue that conduct business internationally. Conducted by GfK for the International Group of Wells Fargo & Company, the score represents the average of responses for two questions regarding the level of importance and activity that U.S. companies expect from their international business in the next 12 months.

This year’s score is 63, down five points from 2014 due to dampened expectations regarding the global economy. Fewer companies this year than in 2014 expect their international business to increase in the coming months. Despite that, roughly half of the companies believe that business outside the U.S. will be increasingly important to their company’s overall financial success. 80% of businesses agree that expanding internationally is important for long-term revenue growth and as a result, 60% of businesses are looking to step up their developing planning in the next 12 months.

Canada and China at 23% top the list as the most important countries for the expansion of U.S. businesses. Mexico at 20% and Western Europe at 19% follow close behind. Brazil and India are also being eyed for future growth.

Factors for New Intl BusinessWhen it comes to assessing new international markets to enter, U.S. companies cite political stability, core infrastructure, favorable tariffs and/or trade regulations, ability to enforce contracts quickly, ease of trading across borders, and skilled labor force as the top important factors.

What other countries should U.S. companies be eyeing for future growth?

Read the full report here: https://www.wellsfargo.com/com/focus/international-business-indicator

Related Articles:

 

U.S., Russia Trade Sanctions Over Crimea

By Carol E. Lee , Gregory L. White and Jared A. Favole, The Wall Street Journal 2014-03-25

The U.S. raised the stakes Thursday in its confrontation with Russia over Crimea, aiming a new round of sanctions closer to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his inner circle even as Moscow struck back with penalties of its own on U.S. lawmakers and White House officials.

The Obama administration’s more aggressive move—targeting a high-profile Russian bank as well as some of Mr. Putin’s wealthiest and most influential supporters—increased the likelihood the retaliation could spiral.

It also marked a notable reversal for a White House that until last month saw Mr. Putin and his government as a vital international partner.

Moscow has vowed an “asymmetrical” response that could encompass global issues important to the U.S., such as the Iran nuclear talks. U.S. officials said earlier that they were prepared for a Russian move to constrict supply routes used by the U.S. that pass near and through Russian territory.

Read Full Article on The Wall Street Journal »

Top Ten Countries with which the U.S. Trades

For the month of April 2013

                                                  Year To Date
                                    Total in         Total in
                                    Billions         Billions
 Country Name                       of U.S. $        of U.S. $

 Canada                                         54.75           208.98
 Mexico                                         44.24           164.53
 China                                           42.09           167.43
 Japan                                                  17.04            67.11
 Germany                                       13.62            51.55
 Korea, South                                  8.79            34.23
 United Kingdom                              7.81            32.58
 France                                          6.75            24.20
 Switzerland                                   6.32            19.55
 India                                            5.73            20.56

source: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/balance.html