Both the BBC and CNBC are
reporting on the move, and both of them are citing a tweet from our President
saying that he is surprised and disappointed that Harley-Davidson is “surrendering”
instead of waiting for the supposed benefits of this trade war to help make up
the difference. How, exactly, a trade policy that protects US steel and
aluminum manufacturers from foreign competition will help a company that makes
motorcycles is a little tenuous. Granted, American metals companies could lower their own prices if they had
less “unfair” foreign competition, but in general, companies lower their prices
as a result of greater competition, not less of it. And even if our domestic
producers were somehow inclined to lower their costs, there is no reason to
believe that they will – or that it would be enough to offset the tariffs being
placed on motorcycles by the EU and other to follow…
A much bigger question, at
least from where I’m sitting, is why anybody would find either of these
developments surprising in the first place. Random, arbitrary, and inexplicably
high tariffs are going to provoke retaliation, just like any other hostile
action. Make them high enough, arbitrary enough, and combine them with enough
ignorant and belligerent rhetoric, and people are likely to see such measures
as economic warfare – because that’s exactly what it is. And while I will
concede that there are some conditions under which tariffs (and other sanctions)
are justifiable, or even sensible – a trade war is still a better idea than an
actual war, in almost every possible case – suddenly declaring a trade war on
countries that have been your stable trading partners for decades makes about as
much sense as attacking them without warning any other way…
I realize that this post is
drifting away from business and towards politics, which I would prefer the blog
not do, but by the same token this is very much a matter of strategy, and in
this case, applying the wrong ones. As a matter of international business or
economics this move makes no strategic sense for anybody except a handful of
American metals companies, and we should note that if there is an economic
crisis because of this trade war their business will not prosper either. The
only category under which this qualifies as an actual strategy is in the case
of appealing to a reactionary political base, or rewarding owners of
newly-protected companies who happen to be current or potential campaign
contributors. Which is really the point…
To put it simply, I don’t
comment (much) on politics because having business interests attempt to direct
national policy is a colossally bad idea – and that is what is happening here.
I do not have any evidence that would prove that members of our current
administration are allowing their own business interests, or those of their
political supporters, to direct our national policy towards a potentially disastrous
trade that can’t possibly do anyone on either side any good, and may ultimately
be bad even for the handful of companies supposedly being protected under such
a policy. I just can’t fathom any other explanation…
This won’t end well. It never
does…
No comments:
Post a Comment