Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog

Paul Krugman calls for 25% cross-the-board tariff on Chinese goods
Howard Richman, 3/15/2010

In a commentary in Sunday's New York Times (Taking on China), Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman called for an accross the board 25% tariff on Chinese goods. Here is his specific recommendation:

In 1971 the United States dealt with a similar but much less severe problem of foreign undervaluation by imposing a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports, which was removed a few months later after Germany, Japan and other nations raised the dollar value of their currencies. At this point, it’s hard to see China changing its policies unless faced with the threat of similar action — except that this time the surcharge would have to be much larger, say 25 percent.

Krugman dimisses widespread defeatism concerning Chinese retaliation, arguing that America has little to fear from China dumping U.S. assets. He points out:

It’s true that if China dumped its U.S. assets the value of the dollar would fall against other major currencies, such as the euro. But that would be a good thing for the United States, since it would make our goods more competitive and reduce our trade deficit. On the other hand, it would be a bad thing for China, which would suffer large losses on its dollar holdings. In short, right now America has China over a barrel, not the other way around.

Krugman is definitely on the right track. He is suggesting that the tariff rate should be proportional to the Chinese currency value. Since the Chinese currency is 20-40% undervalued, the rate should be 25%.

However, China's trade manipulations involve much more than just currency manipulations. China could retaliate, for example, though tariff and non-tariff barriers to American products, as when it recently placed tariffs on American nylon products and chicken parts.

In order to prevent such retaliation, The tariff rate should be announced as being proportional to U.S.-China trade deficits. Not only are trade deficits a concrete measure, but they also give the tariff legitimacy since there is a special WTO rule which lets trade deficit countries apply import limitations or duties in order to balance trade.

With this mechanism in place, if our trade deficit with China comes down, the tariff rate would come down, if our trade deficit with China goes up, the tariff rate would go up. If our trade with China reaches relative balance, the tariff would disappear.

One of the Chinese government's biggest trade manipulations involves its lists of approved products. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard just reported that China is now excluding Boeing commercial aircraft from its approved lists. He wrote:

What interests me is Beijing's willingness to up the ante. It has vowed sanctions against any US firm that takes part in a $6.4bn weapons contract for Taiwan, a threat to ban Boeing from China and a new level of escalation in the Taiwan dispute.

These Chinese government lists determine which products can be purchased by the Chinese government or by government-owned businesses, or with government subsidies. China uses these lists of products to keep out foreign products. In 2009 they were able to grow their economy by 8.7% without increasing imports of American goods.

American companies have long understood that if they want access to the growing Chinese market they must move their factories to China. In December, China made a new rule requiring that foreign companies also move their Research and Development facilities and patents to China, and Pfizer has already announced that it is moving its R&D facility from Connecticut to China.

Krugman is on the right track. But if we want to solve the problem, we need to require balanced trade.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:

Comment by John, 3/29/2010:

Such a tariff would have unintended consequences. High inflation would be one. Consumer prices would rise dramatically, because domestic competitiors could raise prices without the competition from cheap imports. Of course the import prices (as seen by the consumer) would rise immediately due to the tariff. The Chinese probaably hold far more cards for retaliating than we do. Selling our treasuries would be one, while shifting their emphaisis to domestic consumption to replace our lesser demand. Krugman's advice could be castastrophic.

Ultimately, there is no way to compete, without, well, competing. That means being efficient, not overypaying labor as in Detroit. We can view China as a "black box". It is an entitiy that  has and inputs and outputs. If it can produce and deliver goods cheaply, it is ultimately irrevelant what goes on internally. Complaining is useless and ineffective. They are simply out competing us, and nothing can paper over that stark fact. The only effective way to compete is-- to compete.

Comment by John Schuler, 4/11/2010:

I agree completely.

Prof Ravi Batra propsed a 25% import tariff on all imports more than a decade ago.

Sadly, the top 5% of our population who control sine 80% of the wealth - or who serve those who control the wealth, or who legislate in favor of those who control the wealth - like things just fine just the way they are, thank you very much.

We are already, or are fast becoming, a 3rd World Banana Republic - without the Bananas!

John Schuler, Portland, Oregon.

  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Sep 2021
    May 2021
    Apr 2021
    Feb 2021
    Jan 2021
    Dec 2020
    Nov 2020
    Oct 2020
    Jul 2020
    Jun 2020
    May 2020
    Apr 2020
    Mar 2020
    Dec 2019
    Nov 2019
    Oct 2019
    Sep 2019
    Aug 2019
    Jun 2019
    May 2019
    Apr 2019
    Mar 2019
    Feb 2019
    Jan 2019
    Dec 2018
    Nov 2018
    Aug 2018
    Jul 2018
    Jun 2018
    May 2018
    Apr 2018
    Mar 2018
    Feb 2018
    Dec 2017
    Nov 2017
    Oct 2017
    Sep 2017
    Aug 2017
    Jul 2017
    Jun 2017
    May 2017
    Apr 2017
    Mar 2017
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015
    Jun 2015
    May 2015
    Apr 2015
    Mar 2015
    Feb 2015
    Jan 2015
    Dec 2014
    Nov 2014
    Oct 2014
    Sep 2014
    Aug 2014
    Jul 2014
    Jun 2014
    May 2014
    Apr 2014
    Mar 2014
    Feb 2014
    Jan 2014
    Dec 2013
    Nov 2013
    Oct 2013
    Sep 2013
    Aug 2013
    Jul 2013
    Jun 2013
    May 2013
    Apr 2013
    Mar 2013
    Feb 2013
    Jan 2013
    Dec 2012
    Nov 2012
    Oct 2012
    Sep 2012
    Aug 2012
    Jul 2012
    Jun 2012
    May 2012
    Apr 2012
    Mar 2012
    Feb 2012
    Jan 2012
    Dec 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010

    February 2010
    January 2010

    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Last 100 Years
    Real Estate Taxation


    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]