Arguments Against International trade
-
Not Synced♪ [music] ♪
-
Not Synced- [Alex] In our previous videos,
we explained the benefits of trade. -
Not SyncedToday we're going to evaluate
some of the arguments -
Not Syncedthat one often hears
about limiting international trade. -
Not SyncedInternational trade is
a controversial subject. -
Not SyncedThere are a lot of arguments
surrounding it. -
Not SyncedWe're not going to go through all
of them by any means. -
Not SyncedBut here are some
of the most common: -
Not SyncedThat trade reduces the number
of jobs in the United States. -
Not SyncedThat it's wrong to trade
with countries that use child labor. -
Not SyncedThat we need to keep certain jobs at home
for national security. -
Not SyncedWe need to keep certain key industries at
home because of beneficial spillovers onto -
Not Syncedother sectors of the economy.
And we can increase US well-being, the -
Not Syncedargument goes, with strategic trade
protectionism. -
Not SyncedSo we're going to evaluate, say a few
things about each one of these arguments. -
Not SyncedLet's consider trade and jobs. What
happens when a tariff is lowered? Well -
Not Syncedimports will increase, and there will be
fewer jobs in the import competing -
Not Syncedindustry. For example, if we have a tariff
on shoes and we reduce the tariff, we'll -
Not Syncedhave imports of more shoes from China and
from Vietnam, and that will mean fewer -
Not Syncedjobs in the American shoe-producing
industry. -
Not SyncedThat's what people see when they think
about reducing a tariff. They're worried -
Not Syncedabout losing those jobs in the American
industry. However, we want to see the -
Not Syncedissue in a deeper way, in a more
fundamental way. And a key question to ask -
Not Syncedis, "Why do people send us goods? Why
would workers in China, in Vietnam, work -
Not Syncedlong hours to send us shoes?" It's
certainly not from the kindness of their -
Not Syncedheart. Ultimately, they want goods in
return, goods or services. -
Not SyncedThey are working, they are producing in
order to consume. They are sending us -
Not Syncedgoods because they want goods in return.
They are not doing it out of the goodness -
Not Syncedof their heart, but out of self-interest
as Adam Smith said. And that leads to a -
Not Syncedfundamental insight about international
trade. Namely, we pay for our imports with -
Not Syncedexports. When we import more, we will
ultimately export more because we pay for -
Not Syncedour imports through our exports.
-
Not SyncedWhat this means is that trade doesn't
destroy jobs overall. Trade moves jobs -
Not Syncedfrom import-competing industries to export
industries. And overall, wages increase on -
Not Syncedaverage because of comparative advantage.
Because we pay for our imports with -
Not Syncedexports, when we import more, we will
export more. Jobs will reduce in the -
Not Syncedimport-competing industries and increase
in the export industries. -
Not SyncedNow, this process is not always easy.
Problems can occur when we lose jobs in -
Not Syncedlow-skill import-competing sectors and
gain jobs in high-skill export sectors. -
Not SyncedOverall, when the United States imports
goods, we typically import goods produced -
Not Syncedby low-skill, because America on average
is a high-skill economy, has high-skilled -
Not Syncedworkers on a world level. But we do have
some low-skill workers, and imports tend -
Not Syncedto compete with the products produced by
low-skilled workers. -
Not SyncedEverything will be fine if our education
system is working well, and if those -
Not Syncedlow-skill workers can increase their
skills and move to high-tech, or -
Not Syncedhigh-skill, not necessarily high-tech,
high-skill sectors. -
Not SyncedOf course, that's a big "if" and the
transition can be difficult. We have to -
Not Syncedput this in context, however. In a growing
economy, jobs are appearing and -
Not Synceddisappearing all the time. Not just or
even fundamentally because of -
Not Syncedinternational trade, but because of
changes in preferences and changes in -
Not Syncedtechnology.
Let's take a look at that. It's important -
Not Syncedwhen thinking about trade and jobs and
jobs in general that the American economy -
Not Syncedsucceeds precisely because jobs are being
created and destroyed all the time. Job -
Not Synceddestruction is often a sign of progress
and growth. Think about Thomas Edison. He -
Not Synceddestroyed the whaling industry with his
invention of the light bulb. CDs, some of -
Not Syncedyou may not even remember Compact Discs,
they destroyed jobs in the record -
Not Syncedindustry. MP3s destroyed jobs in the CD
industry. This is the way progress often -
Not Syncedoccurs. Employment and the standard living
overall keep rising over time, and the -
Not Syncedreason they're rising is precisely that
old jobs are being destroyed, new jobs are -
Not Syncedbeing created. Overall, in the churn
there's a trend towards richer jobs, -
Not Syncedhigher-paying jobs, higher wages. Overall
technology, trade, these benefit the US -
Not Syncedeconomy.
Child labor is something which no one -
Not Syncedwants, but it's important to understand
that child labor is something which -
Not Syncedhappens when people are poor. Child labor
was common in 19th century Great Britain -
Not Syncedand the United States. Child labor
declined in the developed world as people -
Not Syncedgot richer. Forces that reduced child
labor in the developed world are also at -
Not Syncedwork in the developing countries. As
countries become richer, child labor -
Not Synceddeclines.
-
Not SyncedWhat this graph shows is that as real GDP
per capita increases, the percent of -
Not Syncedchildren ages 10 to 14 in the labor force
decreases. So increases in real GDP reduce -
Not Syncedthe percent of children in the labor
force. The circles, by the way, are -
Not Syncedproportional to the absolute number of
children in the labor force, so in China -
Not Syncedfor example, there are about 12 percent of
kids in the labor force, but because there -
Not Syncedare so many Chinese children, that's a
large number of children in absolute -
Not Syncednumbers.
Again the key here is really that economic -
Not Syncedgrowth reduces child labor. So if you want
to reduce child labor, you want a country -
Not Syncedto become rich. The question is, "Can one
accelerate this process by banning child -
Not Syncedlabor or by refusing to trade with
countries that use child labor?" That's -
Not Syncedreally refusing to trade with the poorest
of countries. Do we really want to do -
Not Syncedthat? Do we really want to say to poor
countries, "We're not going to trade with -
Not Syncedyou."
There are many opportunities here for -
Not Syncedunintended consequences of laws which may
have been, tried to do a good thing, but -
Not Syncedbackfire. So for example, when India
banned child labor, one of the effects of -
Not Syncedthat was to reduce the wages of children
because now you have to hire them under -
Not Syncedthe table. Because their wages were lower,
the families were poorer, and because the -
Not Syncedfamilies were poorer, they had to rely
even more on child labor. So it is very -
Not Syncedeasy to create a policy which backfires.
It is not, in my view, a good idea to use -
Not Syncedinternational trade as a weapon or as a
tool against child labor. -
Not SyncedA much better idea would be to help poor
countries, would be to offer free -
Not Syncedschooling in poor countries, to offer
lunches for schools in poor countries. -
Not SyncedThis increases the incentive to send the
children to school because then they are -
Not Syncedfed. So there are lots of things we can do
to reduce child labor in poorer countries, -
Not Syncedbut to say to those countries, "We're not
going to trade with you because you're -
Not Syncedpoor and you're using child labor," just
exactly the same way we did in the 19th -
Not Syncedcentury, that is really not in my view a
productive policy. -
Not SyncedTrade and national security. Yeah, some
industries probably should be protected to -
Not Syncedprotect national security. The problem is
this argument is subject to great abuse. -
Not SyncedAlmost every industry can and does make
the claim that they're essential for -
Not Syncednational security. So let's give some
examples. Vaccine production? Yes, -
Not Syncedprobably a good idea for us to have some
domestic capability. We don't always want -
Not Syncedto buy our vaccines from abroad, just in
case. Angora goat fleece? Am I serious? -
Not SyncedYes. Believe it or not, we have protected
Angora goats with the argument that their -
Not Syncedfleece is necessary to produce military
uniforms. Yep, some people think goats are -
Not Syncedvital to national security. I'm not
kidding. -
Not SyncedThe key industries argument is very
popular among the high-tech crowd. The -
Not Syncedargument is, is that there are some
industries which for a variety of reasons -
Not Syncedare especially important for a nation to
have a foothold in. "Biology, microbiology -
Not Syncedis going to be the future, therefore we
need to have this type of industry." Or, -
Not Synced'Computers are the future, therefore we
need to have this type of industry." The -
Not Syncedargument is that these industries create
spillovers for other industries. They -
Not Syncedcreate learning, they create research,
they create workers, high-tech workers, -
Not Syncedwhich spread out to other areas of the
economy and benefit the economy in ways -
Not Syncedwhich go beyond the GDP produced by those
particular industries. -
Not SyncedRoss Perot famously made this argument
when he said, "Producing computer chips is -
Not Syncedbetter than potato chips."
In some ways this may be true, but it's -
Not Syncedoverall not a compelling argument. For
example, today most computer chips are -
Not Syncedcheap, mass-produced products. They're not
something we really want to be producing -
Not Syncedat all. They're not even produced with a
lot of labor. They're mostly produced in -
Not Syncedbig factories which don't actually make a
lot of money. Much better to design the -
Not Syncedproduct the way Apple does, making lots of
profit, than to buy the chips which Apple -
Not Synceduses in its iPhones, which don't make a lot
of money at all. -
Not SyncedIn 1990, Walmart contributed more to the
boom in productivity than Silicon Valley. -
Not SyncedSo it's always difficult to say exactly
which are the most important industries. -
Not SyncedYou wouldn't think that Walmart retail is
a hugely important industry, and yet, -
Not SyncedWalmart is the world's largest firm and it
has done a huge amount to make the -
Not SyncedAmerican economy more productive. So no
one really knows which industries are the -
Not Syncedones with the really important spillovers,
and when we add in political economy, the -
Not Syncedtendency for politics to often choose
based upon the wrong reasons, this -
Not Syncedargument is really not very compelling.
Here's an argument which again works in -
Not Syncedtheory but is less likely to work in
practice. It's possible for a country to -
Not Synceduse tariffs and quotas to get a larger
share of the gains from trade. The -
Not Syncedargument here is that if you can limit or
tax exports, not tax imports, but tax -
Not Syncedexports, then you can let domestic firms
act as a cartel, so it's a way of helping -
Not Synceddomestic firms to be more like a monopoly,
to act like a cartel. So the government -
Not Syncedplus the domestic firms put, creates a
tax, or limits exports in order to raise -
Not Syncedthe price of those exports on world
markets and in order to grab up more of -
Not Syncedthe gains from trade.
-
Not SyncedIt can work, especially if there are few
substitutes for US-produced goods. On the -
Not Syncedother hand, if there are substitutes for
US-produced goods or if we push the price -
Not Syncedof our goods up too high, and that creates
the substitutes, we may in the long run -
Not Syncedreally reduce our market. Moreover, these
arguments for strategic trade -
Not Syncedprotectionism are not such a great idea if
other countries can retaliate. If every -
Not Syncedcountry tries to do this, then world trade
as a whole will shrink and no country will -
Not Syncedbe better off. So in trying to grab up a
larger slice of the pie, we have to always -
Not Syncedbe worried about making the pie smaller.
Again, the argument works in theory. A -
Not Syncedvery clever government might be able to do
it, but in practice, this is really not a -
Not Syncedvery good reason for limiting trade.
So to sum up, restrictions on trade waste -
Not Syncedresources by transferring production from
low-cost foreign producers to high-cost -
Not Synceddomestic producers. Restrictions on trade
also prevent domestic consumers from -
Not Syncedexploiting all of the gains from trade.
There are some good arguments for -
Not Syncedrestricting trade. Some arguments are
valid, but they're usually of limited -
Not Syncedapplicability. Overall, I think free trade
is a robust policy in the sense that it's a -
Not Syncedpolicy which works well in most
circumstances and protectionism will work -
Not Syncedwell only in a limited number of
circumstances. -
Not SyncedThanks!
-
Not Synced- [male] If you want to test yourself,
click Practice Questions. Or, if you're -
Not Syncedready move on, just click Next Video.
-
Not Synced♪ [music] ♪
- Title:
- Arguments Against International trade
- Description:
-
In this video, we discuss some of the most common arguments against international trade. Does trade harm workers by reducing the number of jobs in the U.S.? Is it wrong to trade with countries that use child labor? Is it important to keep a certain number of jobs at home for national security reasons? Can strategic protectionism increase well-being in the U.S.? Join us as we discuss these common concerns. - See more at: http://mruniversity.com/courses/principles-economics-microeconomics/arguments-against-trade?
Microeconomics Course: http://mruniversity.com/courses/principles-economics-microeconomics
Ask a question about the video: http://mruniversity.com/courses/principles-economics-microeconomics/arguments-against-trade#QandA
Next video: http://mruniversity.com/courses/principles-economics-microeconomics/introduction-externalities
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- Marginal Revolution University
- Project:
- Micro
- Duration:
- 13:56
Marilia_PM edited English subtitles for Arguments Against International trade | ||
Kirstin Cosper edited English subtitles for Arguments Against International trade | ||
Kirstin Cosper edited English subtitles for Arguments Against International trade | ||
Kirstin Cosper edited English subtitles for Arguments Against International trade | ||
Kirstin Cosper edited English subtitles for Arguments Against International trade | ||
Kirstin Cosper edited English subtitles for Arguments Against International trade | ||
Kirstin Cosper edited English subtitles for Arguments Against International trade | ||
Kirstin Cosper edited English subtitles for Arguments Against International trade |