It has now become more accepted in U.S. trade debate today that trade agreements since 1945 have been a major cause of deindustralization in the United States. This has been accepted by both political parties — to various degrees. In the current presidential election the role of these international agreements, as supported by the corporate, high-tech and the investment world, have now become critical to that debate. Even though these international agreement, global trade and tariffs have often been overlooked historically. This general trade issue today, along with the rise of importance of national security, are the two primary defining aspects of the trade debate today in the U.S. — especially during this presidential election season. Within this debate is, of course, the issue of tariffs and taxes as well as protectionism and isolationism.

“Deindustrialization has diminished the wealth, power and health of working-class Americans arguably more than any other single culprit …. The passage of NAFTA remains one of the most consequential events in recent American political and economic history …. NAFTA has roots in a long-running battle between two visions of trade policy: one that emphasizes the unfettered movement of capital and goods, often at the expense of jobs and wages; another that prioritizes labor and environmental concerns over growth and profits. After World War II, policymakers from around the world, including the United States, proposed creating the International Trade Organization to promote and regulate trade.  Its charter was never ratified ….  Instead, in 1947, the United States signed on to another international agreement: the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which eliminated many trade restrictions but included no enforceable labor standards. This vision of free trade became a cornerstone of neoliberal economics …. NAFTA, which was heavily influenced by hundreds of corporate lobbyists, was negotiated and signed by George H.W. Bush …. Clinton said he believed the agreement would foster an export boom and create a million jobs in the first five years …. The passage of NAFTA — along with other Clinton-era measures like the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a Depression-era law that regulated banks, and the granting of permanent most-favored-nation status for China, which allowed China to enter the World Trade Organization and ultimately cost the United States nearly four million jobs — signaled the Democratic Party’s move away from its working-class, New Deal roots …. Perhaps nothing is more symbolic of Trump’s failed promise to bring back manufacturing jobs than the deal he made in 2018 with Foxconn, a Taiwanese manufacturer of iPhones and other Apple products, to build a campus near Milwaukee …. In 2019, during her presidential campaign, Kamala Harris, then a senator, said she would have opposed NAFTA. The following year, Harris was one of 10 senators to vote against the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. When her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, was in Congress, he voted against giving President Obama fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” “The Nafta Effect and Tariffs.” New York Times (Sept. 8, 2024)

“Mounting protectionism threatens to unwind 30 years of progress in closing income gaps between poor and rich countries, the World Trade Organization has warned …. Research from the Peterson Institute estimates that Trump’s proposed tariffs will cost the average US household $1,700 a year, with poorer households facing an even higher burden ….The increase in the cost of living for the poorest households was 52 per cent higher than for the richest households, according to a study cited by the WTO. We need open trade but we also need complementary policies …. If you want to help workers, you need to make sure that you have the domestic policies in place that help them move towards opportunity.” “WTO and Protectionism Warning.” Financial Times (Sept. 10, 2024)

“Even beyond the election year ritual of lionising the traditional industries of Midwestern swing states, both Democrats and Republicans have become increasingly intrigued by nationalist economic policy, arguing that trade policy should prioritise domestic industrial production and manufacturing jobs …. Such policy instincts are often rooted in misdiagnosis. The jobs lost due to the infamous decade-long “China shock” were far less than a typical quarter of US job losses, and the manufacturing share of employment started its downward trajectory nearly half a century before China joined the World Trade Organization …. Trade disruption matters, but it is far from clear that it is a dominant force.  Still, if US policymakers are truly concerned with offshoring, they have a potentially efficient tool at their disposal: the tax code …. The US tax code puts a heavy thumb on the scale in favour of foreign corporate activity. For a US multinational, foreign income is often taxed either not at all or at a rate that is half that of the US. …. Instead of moving towards a more level playing field between domestic and foreign operations — by increasing the low tax rates paid by large multinational companies — tariffs introduce new distortions, moving production towards less efficient firms and away from exporters that have met the test of world markets …. A future administration should respond to economic discontent in constructive and forward-looking ways, strengthening US fundamentals and building a fairer tax system. In contrast, levying trade restrictions does more harm than good.”  “International Taxe Reform or More Tariffs.” Financial Times (Sept. 10, 2024)