Skip to main content

tv   Forum Considers Future of U.S. Trade Policy  CSPAN  July 22, 2017 1:01am-2:31am EDT

1:01 am
. >> the point to emphasize is over the course of the above the presidency there were scores and scores of people of illinois who bush and the deeply disappointed with the trajectory of the obama of presidency. number one disappointed he forgot most of those who were essential.
1:02 am
>> afternoon mail glad to receive any one - - everyone here. i am a professor of public policy and i am also of the executive director of the host institution the center for error public policy i will tell you that we're delighted with a discussion near and dear that is the subject of trade policy and in particular examine the issue to remedy those of unfair trade practices so
1:03 am
today's panel will be moderated by my colleague as a senior industry fellow taking a wonderful lead clearly it has got an so popular over the years i will steal his thunder but in terms of introducing the panel it is a blue ribbon group for people talking today. looking off the list we see those experts we want to make sure to have ample time for questions and answers as
1:04 am
you hear the panel speak so please wait for a microphone this is recorded for posterity so it is a nice idea to identify yourself and your organization so i will turnover so we can introduce the panel. >> this is a great group we have good dramatic wave of change others they kid will rip the fabric of those that are being taken in vintage. so i call your attention to an editorial of the wall street journal.
1:05 am
at the core of the controversy these are provisions with those trade practices. they have enacted over decades but many believe that the end of the day does not affect u.s. economy. so to allow the executive amd people to temper their reach with those remedies of the national interest now a president seems not to be interested in restraint it has allowed other nations to wipe out to those of unfair trade practices.
1:06 am
we have a panel representing sharply differing viewpoints and the first at the peterson institute these are extricated will work in the handout on the council of economic advisers from the royal bank. a partner and former trade council with the subcommittee on trade and also assisting in policy.
1:07 am
the president he asked me not to try to pronounce that an organization to put that in his when the u.s. trade laws to be heavily engaged in u.s. policy for a number of years next a distinguished fellow with that trade policy initiative as president of the national foreign trade council i am glad to say i have known him for a long time before the senator is in pennsylvania and rhode island. so finally a permanent
1:08 am
strategic advisory firm special advisor cheer president clinton of western hemisphere affairs. in then to have them. and then it will take fibers seven minutes so at this moment. >> so please push the of button for the green light to in this is all televised.
1:09 am
>> i am a senior fellow with that topic of trade remedies so historically we think of them of those countervailing duties. so with those policies governments would use of unfair trade. or the unfair trade that is subsidized by foreign governments but there is a lot of importance so these policies they have used for decades there are special rules under the international agreements but
1:10 am
in some sense it is not new so choose steadied these things i had a database that folks go looking into what i thought i would do is describe what we see in the data and what this might mean for the global economy especially in light of changes happening right now with the trouble administration. even before coming into effect united states is no different. over the last couple of years using more imports than normal but nothing outside of the ordinary. they have not used them that
1:11 am
much with one exception. so the of main target for the countervailing duties so for the united states that is an anti-china policy. even though the export growth has been tremendous and by estimates about 9% of imports from china or through these policies. even with those imports from china it is not true. they have been in used with
1:12 am
those reports from china. there are problems we can attribute to china. but these are just symptoms of deeper problems it is fundamentally a different type of the economy there was an exhortation to be more market to oriented but has not have been automatically superior at critical juncture about what to do about the fact it is not a market economy. so those would have been there during that election.
1:13 am
so does side mentioned others have used countervailing duties. the trouble administration means is that use with that political rhetoric because they typically fly into the radar is in something that generates a lot of attention. the conversation and has changed that the most recently but against canada and mexico and the political escalation the secretary of commerce that is rather
1:14 am
unprecedented to raise foreign leaders having to get involved. but second to moving more of those trade remedies using those around the world not just the united states but what i have in mind here but but that aluminum imports. and under that section so the last time we saw one of these investigations and it provides tremendous discretion to invoke sweeping sets of trade
1:15 am
barriers if you choose. we can come back to this discussion if there is a national security argument for stopping the imports of steel or aluminum. the main reason i would argue of what we import is not from the military adversary. we have already halted much of this steel and aluminum from coming and. steel also comes from mexico germany and japan. historically they have been allies. other initiatives of the trump administration was the government's self initiated
1:16 am
the case it has happened before but it is extraordinarily rare. for those labor unions they have essentially changed the playing field. and open for trade barriers and that has led to the nextel, under that third trade of the global safeguard one on solar panels to inventor of the overcapacity problem in dealing with a lot to do with that but that was
1:17 am
managed through escalate out of control and what we're seeing today. but just to highlight how important they are in a contemporary discussion with the trade representative released the objectives with the new nafta to negotiate with canada and mexico. on page 14 there is a subsection called trade remedies one is to eliminate chapter 19. with that countervailing duty this will serve as an extra of a check and balance
1:18 am
and end that current provisions to said to have a global safeguard been generally if you think back to the bush administration that was a tariff with the imports to canada and mexico there would like to remove these elements and that it suggests the main interest are easier to reimpose those trade barriers and in particular to hurt that
1:19 am
north american region. hopefully that will set the stage for what we're seeing out there. >> i am very pleased to be here with the georgetown university. >> just to make those pedestrian planes to keeping it in context the first everybody through rules based trade but in the case of the remedy rules. then there is a dividing line in to distort free
1:20 am
trade or enable free trade? so that divide and that provides sharper opinions. that consists of a throwback than to selfishly driving at cost for everybody else. if remedies' unable free trade of those now leave ideologues to repeal the anti-smuggling laws. very few people have been known to cross that line but if nothing else have certainly calmed down the
1:21 am
language and right now for the first time we have heard from those organizations that have spoken favorably and not only to be advocates with those procedural requirements with the appropriate scope and level of brevity is progress in my opinion. and with that american institute that puts on the opposite side of the chasm
1:22 am
we just use the old papers against him. >> and then to be drug into the ditch. those that bend steel or forming into their products. but now they are filing their own cases because that targets into the downstream market. we had an executive one time who just joined and called in the fit of vigor because the industry filed a briefing. and what were we going to do to kill it? so we find out where you stand into the consumer's hands.
1:23 am
so there are elected politicians know if everyone changes their mind i will buy you a real lunch. >> that second point to have the disproportionate impact for that trade liberalization and as they fly beneath the radar screen but don't think they'll have a sense of they are cheated and of the government does anything about it. and with those job losses with the downsizing of the economy your productivity gains people don't realize
1:24 am
how bad is absolutely true that is a mistake to underestimate the impact the knowledge of unfair trade with the alliance for american manufacturing to take up polling every year for girl and that is long before the last election. every year there is a super majority of americans that they say it is unfair or the government should do something about it and they will vote for politicians who feels that way and voting against the politician who doesn't. so this is shared with political campaigns every year. so of those candidates to
1:25 am
read them and embrace them that they have tried to instigate over decades. one of the candidates exploited it a little better in here we are. and the third point here we are under the auspices of the institution arguing and that is said and economic exercise with the fact that congress has repeatedly made clear to keep strong and strictly enforcing. but five years ago a federal judge said the commerce
1:26 am
department never had been authorized. so two months later so with that totally partisan environment so that suspension in the house that 10 / one ratio but who is counting? so it makes sense the members of congress would feel that. a bid to beef up the energy test. and customs' ability and
1:27 am
then also with the request for more money and to make the following language in their report and to make that the highest priority to focus expeditiously on the case backlog. so i will leave it at that but substantively so low that arad to expect that aggressive prosecution initiated or not, we need to find a way to an austrian
1:28 am
how that contributes to popular support for free trade. or pronounced and pass to irvin back. >>. >> and with that behavior with those economic effects on economic side and talking mostly about abc but then the justification is the purpose to offset the impact
1:29 am
but you have to do work but the consequence as much as it is the offset with that academic argument to offset the injury also to offset the dumping and that is what u.s. law provides for so what does that mean? so they are intended to offset the crime or how to save the industry and solve all the problems. that might have been fitted
1:30 am
say happy side effect it is in the purpose. but they don't work if they are circumvented that makes enforcement of a large part of the issue. some of them are illegal under the domestic laws. and setting like negative shipping it goes to the third country. and as well as making changes are something not covered. there is ways to get around
1:31 am
to them. and they have put a lot of resources into the enforcement. you to probably have a much greater likelihood been actually achieving the objective. so then what does work mean? occasionally the effective part dog market share but to me it is a more important indication that the purpose to read the tariff and presumably put it at that level we can compete. now back in the dark ages the biggest argument against
1:32 am
these axes they were inflationary. with your toasters and refrigerators i could tell you a joke about that. but i will skip bit. so the point is a little different but ideally if you are the petitioner in the case that might or might not happen in the real world because by reducing the price they're making less money. they could be based on something other than price.
1:33 am
those that tend to look best but isn't a lot of prior differentiation. so the complex products sold directly to consumers there may not experience the same raid but that also matters in the real world. for example, of avocados are $1 reached but the 10% dumping margin is $1.10 each. my suspicion is raising the price will not make a huge difference in the market.
1:34 am
that is how the producers take a vintage of these rates to raise their prices as well. but the margin stays smaller. so the real world of fact and then to say these are not the important release measures also set should three o one that you will hear more about as time unfolds some american and it gives the president the authority to take action. it is more of the of mechanical wall in then to
1:35 am
explain the offending for that penalty to persuade the another country's to persuade its, chris burkett was popular in the '80s to establish with that litigation. iran was useful and then to initiate that investigation set to announce you have been identified and then so too did terminate if this happened to take action.
1:36 am
events with day care accommodation. at has implementations and also of to 32 and two o one trying to deal with a surge of 232 so love that politically fact they are widely confused as a political safety valve as they can protect those constituents and then points to the administrative process to address that problem with that allows the
1:37 am
of legislators and get off of a table which is what the legislators wanted to do over the years. finally the behaviorally fax it is hard to make the case even if the remedy and poses an economic cost that is taken for what they're willing to pay a price for. that doesn't mean there is no hope but many cases filed but it pushes them into other countries. with that circumvention.
1:38 am
and then to have these switches over capacity. in the interest of time i will not get into viability. so the right answers your is a multilateral agreement and to row give relevance and give them some deadlines and in the end it is the right answer with a multilateral process so it is a part of
1:39 am
that plot to destroy them that everybody is taking a hit so this is a more feasible remedy. >> it is good to be back on the hill. >> also adjustors clarify so the one thing of coming after a number of speakers what do you talk about? so first to insert bob's question at the beginning
1:40 am
are they a remedy or protectionist luck said untrue lawyer fashion it depends because anti-lock keaton we applied in the improper way and to make a judgment on how these laws are applied does that mean the laws in and of themselves so they are there to remedy in then for a long time for those that have been viewed to be detrimental.
1:41 am
to go back right after world war i. and the u.s. law is based on the trade pact of 1930. and to have that anti-dumping to recognize that you do have to have some type of remedy. and also with the overcapacity because of other things is it fair for a u.s. company to compete to
1:42 am
provide free electricity and other support but again that purpose is to rule offset. been there is wide support in congress but then to see that policy value. it with that approach trade and most recently in and to have another set of laws with those that came with it to create the political space to support tpa.
1:43 am
but that is ridiculous. so if you did a better job so start off of that when you already lost 95 percent of your audience. >> it is amazing so there is the important political aspect. but some of those more recent aspects.
1:44 am
but there is said increase the there has been a decrease in cases against japan and south korea. so with those exports with those trade frictions and these types of problems that is a natural aspect that increased trade with china would be accompanied with these types of cases with chinese imports. the part of that own initiative and then they did their% of the cases not by
1:45 am
the government or the administration isn't the decision to bring a case. and also mixing those cases that has some note in there was that policy problem and then going back to the 80 needy's. the same thing in sugar for mexico there is agreement of
1:46 am
hall that was in force on the mexican side long before trump was elected so does this really reflect that initiative? not really so the meeting to keep in mind is to separate the rhetoric from the reality. but that reality of the fact is there really isn't that much difference with the administration said that all the way back to the clinton administration because any other wto member they have not been following that for years.
1:47 am
but yet the trade system still exist. is important not to get hyperbolic what is going on. >> debt is very helpful in very interesting. >> and also this meshes perfectly with my beginning. i will pull the lessons back to give you my idea of what is going on with this administration trade policy to put a context around this issue of protectionism of trade remedies. i think it is deadly serious about changing the way we do with trade and our trading partners in the evidence is
1:48 am
manifest in their actions. but i do think all of you should take a look in the wall street journal may 31st read after the president returned from the first trip to europe. if you think it is a little early to talk about the trump dr. read this. is actually lays out the doctrine that is very specifically relevant to trade entitled america first does not mean america alone. while meeting with european leaders with the trade deficits of many european
1:49 am
nations will treat others as they treat us to lay of the president's organizing region but the president had a clear outlook is not a global community but re-read the the not government doctors and those who compete for a vintage. stephen as community decisions and then they go on. we bring to this forum unmatched cultural and moral strength rather than deny this we embrace it. we're the biggest in the
1:50 am
ticket every force for our advantage. the biggest since we have seen since world war ii. how low does this apply to trade? the president said clearly over and over and over again he wishes to undo the fair trade deficit that has existed for decades he said this during the campaign repeatedly and twisted about it. that is bad for the the billion dollar trade deficit with us in mexico and china and others. the response that i hear his book that the actions, not the words he says different
1:51 am
things to different times but i would argue on trade for these related issues to be remarkably consistent i would argue those are the touche steel rods. ruining our country's character trait hollow's us out as victims for unfair trade practices by our partners. we have heard that over and over and over again. he measures this simply in the of bilateral trade deficits there are economists and they say that is not how you measure. bilateral trade deficits often reflect savings
1:52 am
patterns you should not let those practices of those as problems and a relationship but coming back to this, okay is he acting on this? we're here in the dog days of august a time when not much gets done it is still on a friday the dog days of july are busy we see four things i would argue to help us understand with the president really stands prepared to have already occurred with the first
1:53 am
meeting with chinese counterparts if anybody knows anything this is a disaster. even has the meeting started they canceled the normal press conference with the progress that has been made very little said about the meetings but the bilateral discussion that day met and had cake and they set a 100 day schedule to address the issues but here we are. number one. and now number to the steel decision is what we're waiting for and to impose
1:54 am
penalties on those trading partners and not possible opponents in a military conflict. in the commission was meant to look at the bilateral trade deficit with trading partners around the world. and i would argue to decide what countries to go after with those trade deficit numbers. and number four is the nafta objectives which came out on monday starting the 30 day clock of the administration objective for the coming negotiation congress has 30 days to comment action now is 26 days.
1:55 am
:00 is ticking and in this report will set a historic negotiation that has worked quite well the president said two things. the very first objective number one improve the u.s. trade balance and reduce the trade deficit with the nafta countries there is a very small deficit with canada if you have the surplus in the deficit it is awash it is true there is a trade deficit but the number one objective is in the introduction that explains of where they're going.
1:56 am
the new nafta is modernized to reflect 21st century standards with america's persistent trade imbalance in north america. so the president has told his team these are your marching orders so how do you lose a $60 billion trade deficit with mexico? ic three ways you can adjust one is tariffs or quotas or managed trade i look at the impending nafta negotiations it will be difficult to space the president's
1:57 am
objectives if you take $60 billion out that is usually a significant. now lost my train of thought . as these discussions go for rehab be overhanging of immigration if anyone thinks who will pay for the wall and immigration practices in general i don't think you'll understand the dynamics of mexico and here in the southwest. so i will bring this to a conclusion so if you work
1:58 am
for members on the hill you have 26 days for them to get their views of those objectives. another committees of jurisdiction are looking at this for cobol of you out there may have comments to make in this is the time. i think we get to see very clear patterns and president trump's believe he was elected with a regime on trade elected to attend the status quo and it being he is deadly serious about both of those and his team is deadly serious so if you would get the of mcmaster
1:59 am
op-ed if those negotiations are not the arena then we will bring our unmatched cultural and moral strength to canada and mexico you better bring yours. >> so do you disagree? [laughter] >> i am not here to say i degree i and did -- i am glad you brought it up because that was an important statement from the administration with his view on the world but again, yes the president talks about trade in a different way but
2:00 am
the theme of the problem or those perceived problems the focus on the trade deficit. nafta not new even the candidate when after nafta does 2008 i could very easily get statements from members of congress on both sides to focus for better or worse you cannot have an argument on the causes of trade deficits there was an excellent expose say about the surplus and a resident really because of currency but they consume more and we save less. . .
2:01 am
2:02 am
2:03 am
2:04 am
2:05 am
2:06 am
2:07 am
2:08 am
2:09 am
2:10 am
2:11 am
2:12 am
2:13 am
2:14 am
2:15 am
2:16 am
2:17 am
2:18 am
2:19 am
2:20 am
2:21 am
2:22 am
2:23 am
2:24 am
2:25 am
2:26 am
2:27 am
2:28 am
2:29 am
2:30 am
[inaudible conversations]


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on