Latest / Trumponomics / Why So Many Businesses Like Trump’s Promise of Tariffs

Transcript

Why So Many Businesses Like Trump’s Promise of Tariffs · Trumponomics

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News.
• 0:16
  Speaker 2: We're going to bring the companies back. We're going to
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: lower taxes so further for companies that are going to
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: make their product in the USA. We're going to protect
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: those companies with strong tariffs. Because I'm a believer in tariffs.
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure that you are. I don't think you are,
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: but I congratulate you in your career. But to me,
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff, and
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: it's my favorite word. It needs a public relations.
• 0:45
  Speaker 3: Firm.
• 0:47
  Speaker 4: Welcome back to Vhotonomics, where politics and markets collide. This year,
• 0:51
  Speaker 4: voters around the world have the ability to move markets, countries,
• 0:54
  Speaker 4: and economies like never before, so we created this series
• 0:57
  Speaker 4: to help you make sense of it all. I'm Stephanie
• 1:00
  Speaker 4: Flanders joining you this week from the Bloomberg New Economy
• 1:03
  Speaker 4: Forum in South Pawlin.
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: I'm Adrian Waldridge and I'm Algra Stratton. And both Adrian
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: and I are in the Less Glamorous London.
• 1:11
  Speaker 4: So we started the show with that clip from former
• 1:14
  Speaker 4: President Donald Trump's conversation with Bloomberg's editor in chief John
• 1:18
  Speaker 4: Mickelthwaite at the Economic Club of Chicago last week. For
• 1:22
  Speaker 4: about an hour, John asked Trump about his platform. They
• 1:25
  Speaker 4: talked about taxes, immigration, but what they talked most about
• 1:29
  Speaker 4: and obviously which made voter nomics excited, was tariff's And
• 1:33
  Speaker 4: I guess it's not so surprising when, as you just heard,
• 1:35
  Speaker 4: tariff is Trump's favorite word. I guess another surprise, Allegra
• 1:40
  Speaker 4: and Adria was not just that, but the fact that
• 1:43
  Speaker 4: there was so much support in the audience. This Chicago
• 1:47
  Speaker 4: Economic Club members respectable business folk.
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: You know.
• 1:52
  Speaker 4: Some people have said that they must have packed the
• 1:55
  Speaker 4: room the Trump people, and there were quite a lot
• 1:57
  Speaker 4: of staffers there. But actually I think the main reason
• 2:00
  Speaker 4: my colleagues who were sitting at tables during the event
• 2:03
  Speaker 4: waiting for them to come on, said no, absolutely, these
• 2:05
  Speaker 4: were These were regular, respected members of the Midwest business
• 2:09
  Speaker 4: community who really like tariffs, even though most economists think
• 2:13
  Speaker 4: that they're bad for business. So I thought it would
• 2:16
  Speaker 4: be exciting for the three of us to get into
• 2:18
  Speaker 4: whether we should be so surprised by all this. We're
• 2:21
  Speaker 4: going to talk to a very distinguished economist about it,
• 2:23
  Speaker 4: Danny Roderick, who's not so surprised, And we're going to
• 2:27
  Speaker 4: have a chat with John Mickelthwaite about the event itself
• 2:30
  Speaker 4: and what he took away from it. But Adrian, you
• 2:33
  Speaker 4: think America's history provides part of the answer to this.
• 2:36
  Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think America has always been a
• 2:40
  Speaker 5: very pro tariff country, and I think a lot of
• 2:42
  Speaker 5: British people, British free traders in particular, tend to think
• 2:45
  Speaker 5: of America as being like a giant version of Britain
• 2:48
  Speaker 5: and a giant free trading nation. And I think from
• 2:51
  Speaker 5: the foundation of the country, from Alexander Hamilton's infant industry reports,
• 2:56
  Speaker 5: America has relied on tariffs. It's relied on tariffs to
• 2:59
  Speaker 5: raise revenue because the federal government wasn't allowed initially to
• 3:03
  Speaker 5: raise taxes, and also on tariffs to sort of shape
• 3:06
  Speaker 5: industrial policy to catch up with the United Kingdom at
• 3:10
  Speaker 5: the time. And in particular, the Republican Party has been
• 3:14
  Speaker 5: a very tariff focused party. The industrial Republicans have really
• 3:19
  Speaker 5: relish tariffs as a way of keeping out British competition,
• 3:23
  Speaker 5: Britain then being the most industrialized country in the world.
• 3:26
  Speaker 5: One peculiar, rather unpleasant example of this is that during
• 3:31
  Speaker 5: the Civil War, the economists had a great internal debate
• 3:35
  Speaker 5: as to whether to support the North or the South.
• 3:41
  Speaker 5: The Economists magazine, that is, whether to support the North
• 3:44
  Speaker 5: or the South. And on the one hand, of the
• 3:47
  Speaker 5: North was on the side of abolishing slavery, but on
• 3:49
  Speaker 5: the other side, the South was in favor of free
• 3:53
  Speaker 5: trade because they depended on trade in cotton, and the
• 3:56
  Speaker 5: Economists rather unfortunately came out with the conclusion that free
• 4:00
  Speaker 5: trade was a more important principle than abolishing slavery, so
• 4:04
  Speaker 5: they decided for a while at least to endorse the South.
• 4:07
  Speaker 5: So you get very counterintuitive things. And it's only really
• 4:12
  Speaker 5: after nineteen forty five, when America is by far the
• 4:15
  Speaker 5: most powerful country in the world that it embraces free
• 4:18
  Speaker 5: trade and free trade because it doesn't really have any competition.
• 4:22
  Speaker 5: So there is this muscle memory in the United States,
• 4:26
  Speaker 5: particularly in the Midwest and particularly in the business community,
• 4:30
  Speaker 5: of tariff's being really rather good American things.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: Can you imagine in the UK that being something that
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: had a prime minister I will want to be would
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: go out and say I'm going to do an hour's interview.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: A you can't imagine that, or not many of them,
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: but then B that they would say this is going
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: to be my news line, my news line is going
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: to be, you know, tariff's the most beautiful world my
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: favorite word. And then secondly, I think it really for
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: me round home the United Kingdom and the debate in
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: this country obviously understandably focused on the budget net week,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: but that we have not processed what the economics of
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: the next American president might mean for the United Kingdom.
• 5:08
  Speaker 4: You know, this thing that is quite boring. I mean,
• 5:10
  Speaker 4: in general, tarifsts have been considered pretty boring. A bit
• 5:13
  Speaker 4: of international trade has been very politically potent. There was
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: a fantastic bit of research that David Ortor did, the
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: economist who had also did a lot to put all
• 5:22
  Speaker 4: of the information about the China shock to manufacturing workers
• 5:26
  Speaker 4: on the map, and he's looked at whether or not
• 5:29
  Speaker 4: the tariffs and the first Trump administration helped employment in
• 5:32
  Speaker 4: those protected sectors, those bits of manufacturing, and in fact,
• 5:36
  Speaker 4: it didn't sort of help or hurt in those sexes,
• 5:39
  Speaker 4: and it definitely hurt in jobs, as you'd imagine, in
• 5:42
  Speaker 4: the industries that found that their costs were much higher
• 5:46
  Speaker 4: because these imports were now more expensive, whether it's on
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: steel or other things. But even though it hadn't been
• 5:51
  Speaker 4: economically successful, like it actually hadn't helped the groups it
• 5:54
  Speaker 4: was supposed to help, and it had hurt other groups.
• 5:56
  Speaker 4: It had been more politically successful. He'd gone to these
• 5:59
  Speaker 4: counties and found that there were there were more tariffs,
• 6:02
  Speaker 4: there was less support for Democrats, more support for Republicans.
• 6:05
  Speaker 4: So you can see why he's continued down this road.
• 6:09
  Speaker 5: One reason why America can afford to be pro tariffs,
• 6:12
  Speaker 5: of course, is that it's a gigantic internal market. It's
• 6:15
  Speaker 5: a huge America when it was hiding behind these tariffs,
• 6:19
  Speaker 5: also had behind it the world's biggest market. And you know,
• 6:23
  Speaker 5: Europe was absolutely crisscrossed with tiny countries and all of
• 6:27
  Speaker 5: which had barriers to trade in tariffs. America was a
• 6:31
  Speaker 5: free trading you know, subcontinent hiding behind barriers. The other
• 6:35
  Speaker 5: thing about in the early twentieth century, the Republicans and
• 6:39
  Speaker 5: the business community were a pro tariff community, but then
• 6:43
  Speaker 5: there were a rising power that wasn't really central to
• 6:46
  Speaker 5: the world economy. Now they are central to the world economy.
• 6:50
  Speaker 5: So the implications of the world's most important country intertwined
• 6:55
  Speaker 5: with the rest of the world institutionally and through commerce
• 7:00
  Speaker 5: to tariffs is absolutely massive and massively negative. In a
• 7:03
  Speaker 5: way that it wasn't historically.
• 7:04
  Speaker 4: Yeah, and we'll get into some of that. We're going
• 7:06
  Speaker 4: to talk to the Harvard professor, Danny Rodrick, Professor of
• 7:09
  Speaker 4: International Political Economy at Harvard Kennedy School. But first we
• 7:12
  Speaker 4: thought we should have a quick chat with the man himself,
• 7:15
  Speaker 4: John Michaelthwaite. Let's have a reminder first of some of
• 7:18
  Speaker 4: all that tariff talk in his interview.
• 7:24
  Speaker 6: You're going to basically stop trade with China. You're talking
• 7:28
  Speaker 6: about sixty percent trade on that, sixty perent tariffs on that.
• 7:31
  Speaker 6: You're talking, as you said, one hundred two hundred percent
• 7:33
  Speaker 6: or things you don't really like. You're also talking about
• 7:36
  Speaker 6: twenty ten, twenty percent tariffs on the rest of the world.
• 7:39
  Speaker 6: That is going to have a serious effect on the
• 7:41
  Speaker 6: overall economy. And yes, you're going to find some people
• 7:43
  Speaker 6: who were gained from individual tariffs. The overall effect could
• 7:47
  Speaker 6: be massive.
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: I agree, it's going to have a massive effect. Positive effect.
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: It's going to be a positive Let me just no, no,
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: let me get me committed. You are to this, and
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: it must be hard for you. You know, spend twenty
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: five years talking about tariffs has been negative and then
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: have somebody explained to you that you're totally wrong. It
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: will have a negative.
• 8:07
  Speaker 3: It will have.
• 8:11
  Speaker 6: If you don't forty million jobs. There's a lot of
• 8:15
  Speaker 6: jobs to rely on. They're all coming back. What about
• 8:18
  Speaker 6: consumers people out there, they're going to be the biggest critics. Say,
• 8:22
  Speaker 6: your tariffs will end up being like a national sales
• 8:24
  Speaker 6: tax because the country, if you have America at the moment,
• 8:28
  Speaker 6: has three trillion dollars worth of imputs. You're going to
• 8:31
  Speaker 6: add tariffs to every single one of them. That is
• 8:33
  Speaker 6: going to push up the costs for all those people
• 8:35
  Speaker 6: who want to buy foreign goods. Is just simple mathematics,
• 8:39
  Speaker 6: President Trump.
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: It's not. Yeah, it is, but that the way you've
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: figured that was always very good in mathematics.
• 8:44
  Speaker 6: Let me tell you.
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: You're saying three trainia those companion dollars and they don't
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: have to pay. And the higher the tariff, the more
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: likely it is to have them come into.
• 8:55
  Speaker 6: The higher the tariff, the more you're going to put
• 8:56
  Speaker 6: on the value of that those goods, the higher people
• 8:59
  Speaker 6: are going to pay in shops.
• 9:03
  Speaker 4: John, thanks so much for joining us on voter nomics.
• 9:06
  Speaker 4: You're here with me in South Paulo, where we're both
• 9:09
  Speaker 4: interviewing some very exciting people. I have the US Trade
• 9:12
  Speaker 4: Representative Catherine tie which I think will be Gates, and
• 9:16
  Speaker 4: I think both of those will be quite different from
• 9:18
  Speaker 4: your interview with the former President Trump. Now you've said
• 9:22
  Speaker 4: you want the interview to stand on its own and
• 9:24
  Speaker 4: not do commentary around it, and we're obviously going to
• 9:26
  Speaker 4: respect that, but I did want to ask you whether
• 9:29
  Speaker 4: you were surprised by the focus on tariffs and sort
• 9:32
  Speaker 4: of whether it changed your understanding of how much that
• 9:36
  Speaker 4: was going to drive his policy and might continue to
• 9:39
  Speaker 4: shape our world if we do see Trump reelected.
• 9:43
  Speaker 6: I've left the interview to stand there because I think
• 9:45
  Speaker 6: what's important is what he said rather than particularly what
• 9:48
  Speaker 6: I think that on the issue of tariff's. I think
• 9:51
  Speaker 6: it was a surprise to many people just how clear
• 9:56
  Speaker 6: he is about what he wants to do there, and
• 9:59
  Speaker 6: I think it makes it quite difficult for people in
• 10:02
  Speaker 6: the business community who've sat there saying, well, look, he
• 10:04
  Speaker 6: isn't really going to do this, when I think it's
• 10:06
  Speaker 6: one of his core beliefs. It's something that goes all
• 10:10
  Speaker 6: the way back to his initial opposition to n after
• 10:14
  Speaker 6: a long long time ago, when that was very unfashionable
• 10:17
  Speaker 6: in the business community. And I think it's something that's
• 10:19
  Speaker 6: actually a kind of key part of Donald Trump. And
• 10:22
  Speaker 6: I think he feels frustrated that he wasn't able to
• 10:25
  Speaker 6: do more in the first in the first term, and
• 10:27
  Speaker 6: he's coming back in it. And you look at the
• 10:29
  Speaker 6: region where we are, you know, Brazil, Brazil suddenly beginning
• 10:34
  Speaker 6: to think about the European Union in a different light.
• 10:36
  Speaker 6: You look at what's happening up in Mexico, the idea
• 10:39
  Speaker 6: of one thousand percent tariffs landing on particular factories. These
• 10:43
  Speaker 6: are things that could change the world fairly dramatically.
• 10:46
  Speaker 4: Do you think we're exaggerating the difference between him and
• 10:50
  Speaker 4: quite a lot of previous certainly Republican presidents. I mean,
• 10:55
  Speaker 4: even in the eighties, you know, there has been often
• 10:57
  Speaker 4: been a very transactional approach to trade, and one sided
• 11:02
  Speaker 4: deals have been done. Pressure was put on Japan at
• 11:05
  Speaker 4: key moments and everything else. I mean, if you were
• 11:07
  Speaker 4: just looking at this through an America first lens, could
• 11:10
  Speaker 4: an America first lens actually achieved quite a lot for
• 11:12
  Speaker 4: the American economy.
• 11:13
  Speaker 6: You can argue that it did a bit in the
• 11:16
  Speaker 6: first term. Is that it didn't cause as much damage
• 11:19
  Speaker 6: as some people thought, but it was just a lot smaller.
• 11:21
  Speaker 6: I think it was on three hundred and sixty billion
• 11:25
  Speaker 6: dollars worth of goods. Now he's aiming at the whole
• 11:27
  Speaker 6: three trillion dollars of imports, which is a much bigger zone,
• 11:32
  Speaker 6: I think, compared with previous efforts in this regard. Yes,
• 11:36
  Speaker 6: America has always had had something of an industrial policy.
• 11:40
  Speaker 6: You can remember the stuff about Japan in the nineteen eighties,
• 11:42
  Speaker 6: you can see what they've done on chips more recently,
• 11:45
  Speaker 6: and you can just take the basic attitude that there
• 11:47
  Speaker 6: isn't a lot of There isn't that much difference between
• 11:52
  Speaker 6: what has happened so far because Biden has hung on
• 11:54
  Speaker 6: to most of Trunk's tariffs. I think the difference is
• 11:57
  Speaker 6: now that he is massively expanding that front. I mean
• 12:02
  Speaker 6: that there is a big difference between hitting three hundred
• 12:05
  Speaker 6: and sixty billion dollars worth of goods and hitting three trillion.
• 12:08
  Speaker 6: I mean that that is much larger. The sort of
• 12:10
  Speaker 6: numbers he's implying he's going to do are much bigger.
• 12:14
  Speaker 6: And the interesting question will be whether other countries kind
• 12:16
  Speaker 6: of cave or whether they unite. Possibly against it.
• 12:22
  Speaker 5: John's just said that that tariffs are much deeper in
• 12:26
  Speaker 5: the Trump psyche than we perhaps had imagined. It's really
• 12:30
  Speaker 5: a core for foundational belief for Trump, and I think
• 12:34
  Speaker 5: you could also say that tariffs are much deeper in
• 12:36
  Speaker 5: the American psyche than we'd often imagined. If you go
• 12:40
  Speaker 5: back to Hamilton and the infant industry's arguments, you know,
• 12:45
  Speaker 5: he based his entire text system on tariffs. The federal
• 12:49
  Speaker 5: government couldn't tax, so it paid for itself by tariffs.
• 12:52
  Speaker 5: You had very high tariffs protecting American industries all the
• 12:56
  Speaker 5: way through the nineteenth century. So America's pro tariff country,
• 13:01
  Speaker 5: particularly you know, in Chicago and places like that, and
• 13:05
  Speaker 5: particularly with the Republican Party. But nevertheless, when you had
• 13:09
  Speaker 5: Smooth Hawley coming in in nineteen thirty, which was an
• 13:13
  Speaker 5: imposition of new tariffs, a large number of big new
• 13:17
  Speaker 5: tariffs on top of already existing tariffs that plunged the
• 13:21
  Speaker 5: world economy and the United States into a deeper depression.
• 13:25
  Speaker 5: So even if you have a background of tariffs, if
• 13:27
  Speaker 5: you exaggerate and increase that predilection, you can you know,
• 13:33
  Speaker 5: two enormous damage. He does have a smooth All these
• 13:36
  Speaker 5: sort of mindset.
• 13:37
  Speaker 6: I mean, it's quite interesting that he is this time.
• 13:40
  Speaker 6: You know, he would be taking on many of the
• 13:42
  Speaker 6: bedrocks of kind of other people's economies, so German cars,
• 13:48
  Speaker 6: that is a very big deal.
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 13:50
  Speaker 6: He boasted about how he persuaded Macron to kind of
• 13:55
  Speaker 6: give in over things, but by mentioning champagne and wine.
• 13:59
  Speaker 6: But there's some point where luxury goods. If he goes
• 14:01
  Speaker 6: for that again, it's going to be difficult, and I
• 14:04
  Speaker 6: think it does. You know, it is the danger you
• 14:08
  Speaker 6: mentioned smooth Paulo. The danger of tariffs is that it
• 14:10
  Speaker 6: begins to create a narrative, is that there is a
• 14:14
  Speaker 6: limit to how much another country can quietly give in.
• 14:20
  Speaker 6: I do think in America there are deep antecedents on this.
• 14:23
  Speaker 6: As Adrian pointed out, the favorite word which I saw
• 14:26
  Speaker 6: Howard Lutnik use on television was, you know, McKinley is
• 14:30
  Speaker 6: the is the go to president for a lot of
• 14:33
  Speaker 6: the Republican Party at the moment, because it provides a
• 14:36
  Speaker 6: reason to say it won't be that bad. This is
• 14:38
  Speaker 6: how it's a great strong American tradition, and there is
• 14:41
  Speaker 6: you know, there is definitely an advantage in being America
• 14:44
  Speaker 6: because the economy is so big, so I think it
• 14:47
  Speaker 6: definitely could correct me. I think it's like twenty seven
• 14:49
  Speaker 6: percent of the American economy is reliant on trade. I
• 14:53
  Speaker 6: think other places it's much much higher because they're small.
• 14:56
  Speaker 6: You know, you're Britain, I think you're twice that or
• 14:58
  Speaker 6: totally one and a half times that. And the reason
• 15:01
  Speaker 6: why is, you know, in Britain is a smaller place
• 15:04
  Speaker 6: where you're almost bound to be importing the exporting things.
• 15:09
  Speaker 4: Just a bit of Devil's advocate a bit. I mean,
• 15:10
  Speaker 4: his view is that America being the biggest still the
• 15:15
  Speaker 4: biggest kid on the block in these negotiations. You know,
• 15:18
  Speaker 4: we didn't in your interview, didn't explicitly talk about retaliation.
• 15:21
  Speaker 4: But of course a lot of the costs that we
• 15:22
  Speaker 4: see for the US economy from this from having tariffs
• 15:26
  Speaker 4: is the response that other countries would make. You know,
• 15:28
  Speaker 4: that it would be harder for US country companies to export.
• 15:31
  Speaker 4: So you might be helping some, you might be helping
• 15:34
  Speaker 4: some import competing industries, but you would be damaging those exporters.
• 15:39
  Speaker 4: I think his implicit line is, well, let them try,
• 15:42
  Speaker 4: because we're big enough, we can threaten them with something else,
• 15:44
  Speaker 4: we can cut them off swift or whatever it might be.
• 15:46
  Speaker 4: You know, he's talking, he thinks everything's on the table,
• 15:50
  Speaker 4: you know, short run, that's probably true, I think.
• 15:53
  Speaker 6: I think also it's part of a narrative whereby he
• 15:55
  Speaker 6: thinks that America has been hoodwinked, has been given everything away.
• 16:00
  Speaker 6: Lutlik on the on the television was complaining about the
• 16:03
  Speaker 6: Marshall Plan. You know, America is trying to do everything
• 16:07
  Speaker 6: for everybody else and it's and again that slightly goes
• 16:11
  Speaker 6: against history in the sense of, you know, you look
• 16:14
  Speaker 6: at all these things like what happened with Japan, what
• 16:16
  Speaker 6: happened with chips. Secondly, quite interestingly, and Faried Sigaria has
• 16:20
  Speaker 6: made this point quite entertainingly. If you know, these people
• 16:23
  Speaker 6: who think that America has sold itself down the river.
• 16:27
  Speaker 6: By virtually every measure, the American economy has grown at
• 16:31
  Speaker 6: the expense of the European one. So if the Europeans
• 16:34
  Speaker 6: are doing something devious, they're not doing it very well.
• 16:38
  Speaker 6: And the worry is that this actually could come back.
• 16:42
  Speaker 6: You know, there is a point at which every politician
• 16:45
  Speaker 6: cannot keep giving.
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: In my reflection, to take two of your points. The
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: one you just mentioned there around Trump thinking that you know,
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: America's kind of been you know, bailing everyone out or
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: whatever is around defense spending, and we've talked about it before,
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: talk about it again. But we've got a budget coming
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: next week where they may or may not get up
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: to two point five percent on defense spending. But the
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: question I have and lots of people have, is is
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: it going to be enough for a possible second president Trump?
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: And then the second point is the effect for Britain,
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: an open economy, of being in the middle of what
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: could end up being a trade war. We're having this
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: debate about a set of fiscal numbers and budget that
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: feels slightly like it's not even processed. The content of
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: your interview last week, John.
• 17:34
  Speaker 6: You could argue that no country in the world is
• 17:36
  Speaker 6: kind of more exposed in some ways to trump Ism
• 17:39
  Speaker 6: than Britain. In this way, because it is possible, or
• 17:42
  Speaker 6: it would be very difficult, it's possible for the European
• 17:45
  Speaker 6: Union to kind of unite around the idea that they
• 17:48
  Speaker 6: also have a market and maybe they can do deals
• 17:51
  Speaker 6: with countries like Brazil and Mercers or Africa. Then they
• 17:56
  Speaker 6: can have a big enough, free enough market to get
• 17:59
  Speaker 6: quite a lot of the benefits of free trade. In
• 18:01
  Speaker 6: the same way as if America cuts itself off from
• 18:03
  Speaker 6: the world, it can do fairly well. The one the
• 18:06
  Speaker 6: one country Britain is, you know, possibly alongside places like Singapore,
• 18:10
  Speaker 6: is very badly based on that because we were part
• 18:14
  Speaker 6: of this big market where we could have been really
• 18:18
  Speaker 6: quite that might even have worked somewhat in Britain's favor
• 18:22
  Speaker 6: if we were still part of the European Union. Now
• 18:26
  Speaker 6: it's much much harder.
• 18:28
  Speaker 4: Well, the only thing I would say is I think
• 18:30
  Speaker 4: the one thing that could protect the UK, which I
• 18:32
  Speaker 4: agree is otherwise very vulnerable to a global trade war
• 18:36
  Speaker 4: is the fact that Donald Trump does seem to see
• 18:39
  Speaker 4: in his transactional approach he judges where the country has
• 18:41
  Speaker 4: good trade policies by what the trade balances with the US,
• 18:45
  Speaker 4: and we are one of very few countries that actually
• 18:47
  Speaker 4: has a has a deficit with the US, so he
• 18:51
  Speaker 4: may he may let the u UK off, whereas he's
• 18:54
  Speaker 4: definitely you could tell from the interview he's got Europe
• 18:55
  Speaker 4: in his sites, because there's there's a big, big surplus
• 19:00
  Speaker 4: of a lot more goods coming in from Europe than
• 19:03
  Speaker 4: going out to Europe. From the US John Mick, thank
• 19:06
  Speaker 4: you very much.
• 19:07
  Speaker 6: Thank you.
• 19:11
  Speaker 4: Let's talk now to Danny Roderick. Danny is a widely
• 19:15
  Speaker 4: respected economist Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at
• 19:19
  Speaker 4: the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, also the author
• 19:23
  Speaker 4: of many books on globalization, trade, and related subjects. Danny Roderick,
• 19:28
  Speaker 4: thank you so much for joining us. We've just been
• 19:31
  Speaker 4: hearing some of the snippets from our edister in chief's
• 19:35
  Speaker 4: conversation with Donald Trump last week, which was surprisingly to
• 19:40
  Speaker 4: some dominated by talk of tariffs, and it certainly I
• 19:44
  Speaker 4: think brought home that interview how much the America First
• 19:47
  Speaker 4: approach frames his way of looking at a lot of policy,
• 19:53
  Speaker 4: and certainly international policy. And we hear a lot about
• 19:56
  Speaker 4: how terrible that is and all the risks and downsides
• 19:59
  Speaker 4: from sort of traditional economic standpoint. But I'm interested, given
• 20:03
  Speaker 4: your record of being quite open minded and often critical
• 20:09
  Speaker 4: of the mainstream approach to globalization and global integration, I
• 20:13
  Speaker 4: just wondered where you thought that his approach might be
• 20:18
  Speaker 4: getting it right, and whether protectionism more generally, you know,
• 20:24
  Speaker 4: maybe has its place in a more balanced view of
• 20:26
  Speaker 4: global integration.
• 20:28
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Actually I don't think, you know, he's getting it right.
• 20:31
  Speaker 3: It's not because I think tariffs are going to be
• 20:35
  Speaker 3: tremendously costly. I think it's more because I think a
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: strategy that focuses on tariffs is just going to miss
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: the bigger picture, and it's just going to be frankier
• 20:46
  Speaker 3: distraction from the agenda that does need to be pursued
• 20:50
  Speaker 3: to revive of the middle class and create good jobs
• 20:53
  Speaker 3: and strengthen the uran's economy. I don't think there's anything
• 20:57
  Speaker 3: wrong per se with in a Matria first policy. I
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: don't think there's anything wrong per se with economic nationalism.
• 21:05
  Speaker 3: In fact, I think all elected governments are elected to
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: advance the interests of their nation, the interests of their
• 21:13
  Speaker 3: own national economies. When they do it right, actually they
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: do a service not only do their own electorate, they
• 21:20
  Speaker 3: do service for the world economy as a whole. I think,
• 21:23
  Speaker 3: especially for an economy that's systemically as important as the
• 21:27
  Speaker 3: United States, there's no creator gift that a US president
• 21:31
  Speaker 3: can provide to the rest of the world than by
• 21:35
  Speaker 3: generating a strong, thriving, innovative US economy. But I think
• 21:40
  Speaker 3: the problem with tariffs is that it's just not the
• 21:44
  Speaker 3: way to go about do that. And I can get
• 21:47
  Speaker 3: into the details if you want, but I think the
• 21:49
  Speaker 3: main point is that tariffs are a distraction.
• 21:52
  Speaker 4: Well, I just just to follow up on that, because
• 21:54
  Speaker 4: I saw you'd also written a piece about sort of
• 21:56
  Speaker 4: being a bit more when you talk about countries moving
• 21:59
  Speaker 4: in a more nationalistic direction economically and specifically policies, which
• 22:04
  Speaker 4: are you know, we've sort of got used to thinking
• 22:07
  Speaker 4: that a level playing field. We must be looking for
• 22:09
  Speaker 4: a level playing field at all times, and then when
• 22:11
  Speaker 4: countries introduce policies that seem to try and skew the
• 22:14
  Speaker 4: playing field or are very supporting their producers over others,
• 22:20
  Speaker 4: we've tended to always just condemn that as against free
• 22:24
  Speaker 4: trade and against integration. But you suggested we should be
• 22:27
  Speaker 4: more nuanced in the way we look at those kind
• 22:29
  Speaker 4: of more nationalistic policies.
• 22:32
  Speaker 3: I think all successful economic strategies are a mix of
• 22:36
  Speaker 3: letting markets and private firms in their thing, and then
• 22:40
  Speaker 3: governments giving them a little nudge here and there. Sometimes
• 22:45
  Speaker 3: it takes a form of subsidizing them. Occasionally in the
• 22:49
  Speaker 3: past is taking the form of trade restrictions. So I
• 22:53
  Speaker 3: think we need to be open minded. I think the
• 22:57
  Speaker 3: problem with just focusing on town first and foremost is
• 23:02
  Speaker 3: that it just doesn't give the necessary note. You basically
• 23:06
  Speaker 3: are just telling producers I'm going to allow you to
• 23:09
  Speaker 3: raise prices, and generally speaking, if you allow them to
• 23:12
  Speaker 3: raise prices, they might produce a little bit more so
• 23:15
  Speaker 3: you might get a domestics supply response for those industries
• 23:18
  Speaker 3: that will receive the trade protection. But there's nothing in
• 23:22
  Speaker 3: tariffs per se that will get them to innovate, to
• 23:24
  Speaker 3: create good jobs, to bring online the industries of the
• 23:29
  Speaker 3: future and technologies of the future. Tariffs are okay as
• 23:32
  Speaker 3: a temporary shield when you have a genuine industrial strategy
• 23:37
  Speaker 3: or a genuine economic strategy that is targeting all the
• 23:41
  Speaker 3: challenges of our day, whether it's good jobs or climate
• 23:43
  Speaker 3: change or addressing the needs of lagging regions. But on
• 23:47
  Speaker 3: their own, they're just a very instrument. They're lack essentially
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: any power to achieve those ends.
• 23:54
  Speaker 5: Danny Cauld ask you a little bit about about history,
• 23:57
  Speaker 5: because I think the British in particular, but also the
• 24:00
  Speaker 5: economic profession in general, tend to think of America historically
• 24:04
  Speaker 5: as being like a big version of Britain, and they
• 24:06
  Speaker 5: think if it's as being a free trading nation. But actually,
• 24:09
  Speaker 5: surely tariffs have been central to American history, the free
• 24:14
  Speaker 5: trading regimes relatively recent, and so if you saw the
• 24:18
  Speaker 5: reaction to Trump's talking about tariffs, that hits something quite
• 24:22
  Speaker 5: deep in the American psyche, doesn't it.
• 24:24
  Speaker 3: I think that's right. I think it is good to
• 24:26
  Speaker 3: bring in history. And it's true that America basically caught
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: up and surpassed Britain the second half of the nineteenth
• 24:34
  Speaker 3: century behind very high levels of tariffs. But if you
• 24:38
  Speaker 3: looked at that experience and you thought it was just
• 24:41
  Speaker 3: the tariffs that did it, you would really mess everything
• 24:44
  Speaker 3: else that was taking place, whether it's the land grand colleges,
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: whether it's the investment in public infrastructure, whether it was
• 24:54
  Speaker 3: or the other encouragements to domestic industries that was taking place.
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: They don't like to be doctrinaire about tariffs, and I
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: do think that much of the discussion today about the
• 25:06
  Speaker 3: cost of Trump's tarffs really paint a picture that sort
• 25:10
  Speaker 3: of it's the worst possible outcome. I mean, I can
• 25:13
  Speaker 3: give you a scenario where Trump's tariffs, let's say ten
• 25:17
  Speaker 3: percent across the board tariffs on all imports could generate
• 25:22
  Speaker 3: a catastrophe. But I sort of think it's unlikely that
• 25:25
  Speaker 3: that's what will happen. I think again, what I worry
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: about is that that becomes the US strategy.
• 25:33
  Speaker 5: But just to repeat a historical point, you could easily
• 25:35
  Speaker 5: argue that the Republican Party is essentially historically a protectionist party.
• 25:40
  Speaker 5: It was a protectionist party in the late nineteenth century,
• 25:43
  Speaker 5: it was a protectionist party in the nineteen twenties. There
• 25:45
  Speaker 5: was an aberration with Reagan. But basically Trump is taking
• 25:49
  Speaker 5: that party back to its roots, which is why the
• 25:51
  Speaker 5: guys in Chicago were cheering him.
• 25:53
  Speaker 3: That is true. So the Republicans were, of course the
• 25:55
  Speaker 3: party of high tariffs because they were the party of business,
• 26:00
  Speaker 3: and business were you know, trying to was trying to
• 26:02
  Speaker 3: compete with Britain, which was of course the major economic
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: power of the day. But there's another tradition in US
• 26:09
  Speaker 3: economic history, which is actually a free trade tradition that
• 26:12
  Speaker 3: comes from a somewhat different side. Historically, one of the
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: most significant populist traditions was the one that rose to
• 26:20
  Speaker 3: the four in the United States in the eighteen nineties
• 26:23
  Speaker 3: with the US People's Party.
• 26:25
  Speaker 5: Norman It's almost the great socialist presidential candidate. I think
• 26:28
  Speaker 5: six times presidential candidate it was a free trader, and
• 26:31
  Speaker 5: Cootel Holl of course is a free trade it's much
• 26:34
  Speaker 5: more on the left, the free trading tradition and the
• 26:37
  Speaker 5: rights much more protectionist.
• 26:38
  Speaker 3: I think, you know. So there has been in the
• 26:41
  Speaker 3: progressive tradition certainly a kind of a free trade, strong
• 26:45
  Speaker 3: free trade stream, and part of it is as the
• 26:48
  Speaker 3: US progressive believes that Tariff's high tariffs were actually a
• 26:52
  Speaker 3: giveaway to the business. And that's why US progressives, for example,
• 26:56
  Speaker 3: didn't like Taris because they thought there was a pro
• 26:58
  Speaker 3: business it was a kind of it was a pro
• 27:00
  Speaker 3: elite policy.
• 27:02
  Speaker 5: So what I'm trying to get at is that Trump
• 27:04
  Speaker 5: is not necessarily this great aberration for the Republican party.
• 27:07
  Speaker 5: He's actually going back to quite a deep Republican business
• 27:11
  Speaker 5: tradition of protectionism.
• 27:13
  Speaker 3: Well, yes and no. But again, I think the US
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: position in the world economy has changed so much that
• 27:19
  Speaker 3: I think it's difficult to draw a very I think
• 27:22
  Speaker 3: the reason that the US conservative establishment and the business
• 27:27
  Speaker 3: established and became free trader after the Second World War
• 27:31
  Speaker 3: was just the sense that the US economy was on
• 27:33
  Speaker 3: top of the world, that their interests were going to
• 27:36
  Speaker 3: be best served by free trade, So maybe going back
• 27:39
  Speaker 3: to that tradition is also party that the US has
• 27:42
  Speaker 3: lost ground that is balling behind.
• 27:45
  Speaker 4: Denny, you've made a name over the years for pointing
• 27:48
  Speaker 4: out the sort of inconvenient truths about international economics and
• 27:53
  Speaker 4: highlighting when there were several objectives that we'd like to
• 27:57
  Speaker 4: think we can achieve all at the same time, and
• 27:59
  Speaker 4: you would say, no, you can only achieve two out
• 28:01
  Speaker 4: of three. You talked about trilemmas. There was a very
• 28:04
  Speaker 4: famous one more years ago about globalization, which I don't
• 28:07
  Speaker 4: want to get into. But more recently you've highlighted that
• 28:12
  Speaker 4: if we have countries like the US but also European
• 28:16
  Speaker 4: Union it's now imposing tariffs on China other countries concerned
• 28:20
  Speaker 4: about restoring the middle class in advanced economies, countries can't
• 28:26
  Speaker 4: do that and combat climate change and still provide a
• 28:32
  Speaker 4: sort of path to development for places like China but
• 28:36
  Speaker 4: also other developing countries. You can't do all three of those,
• 28:39
  Speaker 4: you've suggested, you could only do two out of the three.
• 28:42
  Speaker 4: I just wondered if you could go into that a
• 28:44
  Speaker 4: bit more, and I guess sort of highlight you know,
• 28:47
  Speaker 4: if whatever we think about Donald Trump's policies. He's not
• 28:50
  Speaker 4: alone in wanting to support and sort of re level
• 28:57
  Speaker 4: the playing field in favor of advanced economies and to
• 29:01
  Speaker 4: some extent protect the middle class from competition from developing countries.
• 29:06
  Speaker 4: That's pretty damaging for the countries that have yet to develop.
• 29:10
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I think there's there's there are two
• 29:13
  Speaker 3: paths here. I mean one and the one that I
• 29:15
  Speaker 3: worried about when I wrote about this new trilemma is
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: that if we go down a path where we basically
• 29:22
  Speaker 3: say the only way that we can lift up the
• 29:26
  Speaker 3: middle class and address climate issues in the United States
• 29:31
  Speaker 3: and Europe is through trade restrictions and through industrial policies
• 29:36
  Speaker 3: that significantly discriminate against the rest of the world, then
• 29:40
  Speaker 3: we're at the heart of that trilemma because we're going
• 29:42
  Speaker 3: to really make it very difficult for the rest of
• 29:45
  Speaker 3: the world, especially in low income countries, to access markets
• 29:50
  Speaker 3: in the rich countries. And so that's essentially the core
• 29:54
  Speaker 3: of the trilemma. The other path is to realize that,
• 29:58
  Speaker 3: in fact, if you wanted to add resk climate change
• 30:01
  Speaker 3: and restore the middle class, you know, trade restrictions and
• 30:05
  Speaker 3: this communitary industrial policies is not really the way you
• 30:08
  Speaker 3: would go about it. And so that's why I want
• 30:11
  Speaker 3: to stress this is a trilemma that can be overcome
• 30:14
  Speaker 3: if we manage to overcome two fetishes that we're having currently.
• 30:20
  Speaker 3: One is a manufacturing fetish, the other is a kind
• 30:23
  Speaker 3: of an overblown fear of China in the West. I
• 30:26
  Speaker 3: think the manufacturing fetish shows up that in the idea
• 30:30
  Speaker 3: that to create good jobs and show up the middle
• 30:33
  Speaker 3: class you need protectionism. But of course there are very
• 30:36
  Speaker 3: few jobs in manufacturing today. Around eight percent of full
• 30:40
  Speaker 3: labor force in the United States are in manufacturing, and
• 30:43
  Speaker 3: there's no way no amount of protectionism is going to
• 30:46
  Speaker 3: make a huge amount of difference to that. So if
• 30:49
  Speaker 3: you want to address the middle class, both in the
• 30:52
  Speaker 3: United States and Europe, you have to pursue policies that
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: are very different from trade policies or industrial policies that
• 31:00
  Speaker 3: focus on manufacturing or high tech. And I think on
• 31:03
  Speaker 3: climate change, there's no way you're going to address your
• 31:06
  Speaker 3: climate change objectives without managing to allow developing countries to
• 31:11
  Speaker 3: access the kinds of technologies and renewables and new kinds
• 31:15
  Speaker 3: of investments that the US and Europe are trying to
• 31:17
  Speaker 3: incentivize to their own industrial policy, so you'll have to
• 31:20
  Speaker 3: facilitate that as well. So there is a trilemma on
• 31:24
  Speaker 3: the path that we're on. But it's in many ways
• 31:27
  Speaker 3: it's kind of a false trialams it's driven by a
• 31:30
  Speaker 3: kind of a false consciousness of manufacturing fetishism, an excessive
• 31:35
  Speaker 3: concern about China, which sort of is driving is in
• 31:38
  Speaker 3: fact a large part of this economic nationalism.
• 31:42
  Speaker 4: I can't imagine, given the sort of tone of the conversation,
• 31:46
  Speaker 4: what would have happened if our editor in chief had
• 31:48
  Speaker 4: accused Donald Trump of having a manufacturing fetish I think
• 31:51
  Speaker 4: the conversation could have done a whole different direction. And
• 31:54
  Speaker 4: I know you're particularly interested in the climate agenda. I
• 31:56
  Speaker 4: wonder what you thought of well.
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: I mean, the thing that we discussed in the hey
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: was something called the carbon border adjustment mechanisms. So I
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: think you can do two of your three, which is essentially,
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: if you make the import of goods that have relied
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: on that appear to be cheap, that's because you've not
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: priced carbon. If you make them more expensive, then you
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: can then make more competitive goods that could be made
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: within the United Kingdom, and so you create jobs and
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: so on. So you can see that two of your
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: three have been hit. In that way, you have reduced
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: the amount of carbon that's being imported, and you have
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: also beefed up the number of jobs that you're making
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: within in our case the United Kingdom, but it's relevant
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: for lots of different countries. What you're then needing to
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: do to be able to try and get anywhere close
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: to the third you know, lever or the third leg
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: of the trilema or lemma of the trial memor or
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: whatever we call it is. You're then having to think
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: about how you use either the aid budget or other
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: levers to support the international community, as you say, with
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: their transition to lower carbon technology. Some of the wealthier
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: developing nations will do it without needing the support of
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: rich nations because they're getting very rich themselves, but some
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: of them will not be able to When you have
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: what we have seen occasionally in the United Kingdom, which
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: is this kind of worry about the eight budget being
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: too generous and so on, that becomes difficult.
• 33:14
  Speaker 3: But I think that's a great example of both in
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: the trial eva under our current path and the mist opportunity.
• 33:21
  Speaker 3: In terms of the alternative path I presented the mist
• 33:24
  Speaker 3: opportunity here is that the carbon border adjustment mechanism is
• 33:29
  Speaker 3: actually raising revenue for the EU, and the point of
• 33:35
  Speaker 3: the adjustment mechanism was not to generate revenue, was to
• 33:38
  Speaker 3: actually protect domestic industries. So why not use that revenue
• 33:42
  Speaker 3: to rebate them directly to the countries exporting countries that
• 33:47
  Speaker 3: will be harmed by these higher border tariffs and essentially
• 33:52
  Speaker 3: providing an immediate plank between these revenues and incentivizing them
• 33:58
  Speaker 3: through this transfer of the rebates of these revenues that
• 34:01
  Speaker 3: you are being countries to incentivize them to engage in
• 34:04
  Speaker 3: investments in renewrmal.
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: I suppose Professor Roderick, because one of the things that
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: particular when we think about it with the United Kingdom
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: hat on, and this is true some European countries, is
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: that those countries electorates don't feel very rich. We're about
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: to have a budget in the UK next week which
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: will be fraud and it is not obvious how they
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: can raise money in a way that is not painful
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: to some part of the electorate. So even though you know,
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: compared to developing nations and so on, it's you know,
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: in the United Kingdom, population is comfortable it's a fraud
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: public debate.
• 34:37
  Speaker 3: And clearly in the UK has A has a bigger
• 34:39
  Speaker 3: problem here because of I think an artificial sense of
• 34:42
  Speaker 3: the pytical constraint. But for certainly the EU is something
• 34:46
  Speaker 3: could have done that because the revenues were not a
• 34:48
  Speaker 3: big part of the consideration in putting in in phasing
• 34:53
  Speaker 3: in the border adjustment mechanism.
• 34:56
  Speaker 4: Daniel Rodgers, that was fantastic. I think we could have
• 34:59
  Speaker 4: carried on a lot long and gone back into more
• 35:01
  Speaker 4: of your analysis over the years of all these things,
• 35:04
  Speaker 4: which has often predicted some of these debates, although I
• 35:06
  Speaker 4: guess you probably didn't exactly predict Donald Trump, but certainly
• 35:09
  Speaker 4: you predicted some of the tensions that produced him. But
• 35:14
  Speaker 4: thanks very much, thank you, thank you, thanks for listening
• 35:21
  Speaker 4: to this week's vogion Nomics from Bloomberg. This episode was
• 35:23
  Speaker 4: hosted by me Stephanie Flanders in South Paulo, with help
• 35:27
  Speaker 4: from Adrian Waldridge and alegra Stratton. It was produced by
• 35:30
  Speaker 4: some of Sadie, with production support from Isabella Ward and
• 35:34
  Speaker 4: sound design by Moses and special thanks to John Mickelthwaite
• 35:38
  Speaker 4: and Professor Danny Rodrick. Please subscribe, rate and review highly
• 35:43
  Speaker 4: this podcast, wherever you listen to it,