Here’s a letter to the New York Times.
Editor:
Oren Cass’s case against increased Chinese investment in America rests exclusively on fears that Beijing will use such investments to undermine U.S. national security (“Is Trump About to Invite In the Biggest Predator in the World?” May 8). If these fears are warranted, Mr. Cass’s larger case for protective tariffs – a case that he has relentlessly offered for many years – is especially unwarranted.
Mr. Cass portrays the Chinese government as a devious “predator” with virtually unlimited willpower and access to resources. Facing such an enemy, the U.S. government should do all it can to strengthen America’s economy as well as those of America’s allies. This goal is best served by promoting free trade with Latin America, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, India, Oceania, and most of East Asia. Such free trade would enrich the U.S. economy and those of our allies and thereby enhance our national security. It would also entice governments whose allegiances are now torn to ally more firmly with the U.S. and against China.
Yet in countless other writings and interviews, Mr. Cass proposes the use of protective tariffs to eliminate U.S. trade deficits, raise revenue, create more manufacturing jobs, and simply to protect American workers from imports – a protectionist program that would require raising tariffs not only on U.S. imports from China, but on imports from nearly all other countries, including our closest allies. Indeed, Mr. Cass has praised Pres. Trump’s embrace of such extensive tariffs. This sort of U.S. protectionism, however, weakens U.S. national security and strengthens Beijing’s hand.
By attempting to justify protectionism with mutually incompatible arguments, Mr. Cass undermines his credibility as an analyst of trade and trade policy.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
