Trump’s definitions will not provide many jobs

Open the newsletter for White House Watch for free

Your guide to what Trump’s second state means to Washington, the business sector and the world

Will Donald Trump’s protective commercial policies achieve the goals that his voters hope for? The answer is: No. The most important goal ever was to create a large number of new manufacturing functions. This is the promise made by former industrial workers and the destructive places in which many live. Unfortunately, it is fraudulent. Trump rules in his favor, but also in favor of the wealthy layer whom many people blame, not completely wrong, for their ordeal.

Robert Lawrence of Kennedy College at Harvard University and the Peterson Institute for International Economy has numbers in “The closure of the trade deficit will hardly lead to an increase in the employment sector in the manufacturing sector in the United StatesIt was published in June. He wondering about the size of the additional job opportunities that will be generated if the trade deficit in manufacturing is eliminated by 2019 Trump’s protection. Since the deficit is Trump’s obsession, this is the correct question.

The starting point in the accounts is to separate the added value from the total value of sales, because the production of added value is the one that creates job opportunities. Accordingly, if a car made in the United States replaces a imported car worth 30 thousand dollars, then the added value in the United States (except for the non -manufactured inputs, such as raw materials) will reach about 15 thousand dollars. In 2019, the total US exports of manufactured goods amounted to 820.1 billion dollars, and the total imports of $ 1605.4 billion, leaving a deficit of $ 785.3 billion. But the value added in US exports amounted to only 456.7 billion dollars, while the foreign added value in US imports amounted to 860.5 billion dollars. Thus, the value -added deficit amounted to $ 403.8 billion, or slightly more than half of the total deficit. This percentage appears to be completely stable.

In short, Lawrence notes that the net value added in the commercial deficit in the manufactured goods in 2024 was 21.5 per cent of the American product. This will be the increase in the value of the United States if the commercial deficit is eliminated. What is the size of the employment that this will produce? This will reach 2.8 million jobs, which means only 1.7 percentage points in the employment share in the United States, to 9.7 percent of the total jobs. But the share of production workers in the United States in this case is only 4.7 percent, and the other five percentage points consist of managers, accountants, engineers, drivers, sales representatives, etc. The rise in the employment of “Sons of the Sahwani” will not exceed 1.3 million, or only 0.9 percent of employment in the United States. So the mountain of customs definitions imposed by Trump may be arduous. But it will Mouse.

These estimates are approximate and ready. But they are optimistic as well. Unless the balance between the output and spending changes, the trade deficit will not shrink at all. The main local source of demand that supports the external deficit is the financial deficit. Therefore, the condition necessary to reduce the external deficit, especially in an economy that approaches the full operation of the employment (and pushing workers out of the country while preventing new workers from entering) is to tighten the federal budget. But at the present time, the net impact of customs definitions and the “Beautiful Law Law” remains on the financial deficit It looks close to zero. Moreover, if the external deficit is eliminated, the United States will spend less and will feel poorer.

Worse, customs definitions are a tax on goods. In general, the poor spend relatively more relatively on commodities compared to the wealthy: and therefore, the customs definitions are righteous. The OBBA law is also retrospective, whether with regard to taxes or spending. like Paul Crowgman emphasizes,, Discounts in supporting health insurance that led to the closure of the government The same people who are supposed to be assisted by Trump’s definitions will be hit. This is populist for the wealthy.

Another expert on trade affairs, Richard Baldwin from IMD in Lausanne, adds that what Trump is trying to do is specifically Comprehensive manufacturing to replace imports Many developing countries, most notably India and a large part of Latin America, have tried, and then abandoned it for decades. They did so because he failed. Protected industries were unable to catch up with industries exposed to global competition and the most able to exploit global markets: they even declined. Over time, the same will happen even for the United States, especially in light of its rejection of science and its abandonment of clean energy. Trump’s protective policies are a crime and foolishness.

As the ancient philosopher Heraklitus said, you cannot go to the same river twice. Nostalgia is not a strategy: the past cannot return. As noted Last NovemberIt will be impossible to restore lost industrial function. Employment classes in industry decreased even in countries with huge trade surpluses. In rich countries, the demand for manufactured goods grows relatively slowly, because people want services, while technology reduces the need for production workers. In the long run, almost all of these will be of robots.

We cannot doubt that the decline in manufacturing has created major social and political problems. In fact, if we compare the chances of industry for the less educated men with the high share of the population with higher education, we can see an engines of right -wing popularity today. Among the consequences is Trump and his ilk. They were very skilled in the exploitation of the resentment of the “left” against those who left behind Thomas Picetti and others are called the “Brahman”..

The tragedy is that populists do not provide any solutions. They only take advantage of the anger and frustration of the deteriorating working classes in their favor and the interests of the rich people. Trump’s foolish protection policies are the best example of this approach. As noted HL Menkin, “There is always. . . A solution to every humanitarian problem – elegant, reasonable and wrongCustoms definitions are the supreme example of such a false solution. History people now have to find a much better one.

[email protected]

Follow Martin Wolf with Myft On twitter