After decades of foreign policy debates centered on dealing with states and actors far weaker than ourselves, the United States has lost the âfinger tip feelâ and grammar for determining how to respond to a nation that is comparable to us in power.
Regulatory skeptics make a fundamental mistake in assuming that the United States can freely choose between greater state intervention in digital markets and a continued laissez-faire approach.
A guide to what is happening in the semiconductor industry and how the U.S. fell behind its competitors in the global race for leadership.
It may come as a surprise to many readers that arguments about radically altering the concept of corporate taxation do not hail exclusively from right-wing libertarian think tanks.
Unilaterally disarming from trade conflict on behalf of open markets, and then making empty demands, is not a plan.
Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer joins American Compass executive director Oren Cass for a conversation about his work as the U.S. Trade Representative, the overhaul of America’s economic relationship with China, successes achieved and lessons learned, and key challenges facing the Biden administration.
Former U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer joins American Compass executive director Oren Cass for a conversation about trade policy, in his first interview since leaving the administration.
Immigration expansionists face a difficult challenge: they support high levels of immigrationâincluding many more less-skilled immigrantsâfor a variety of legitimate reasons, but the less-skilled immigration has detrimental economic effects on Read more…
A funny thing happened in the days after we published âWhat Happened: The Trump Presidency in Review.â The collectionâs emphasis on the success of economic policies that pushed the labor market toward full employment attracted substantial interest from proponents of looser fiscal and monetary policy. But that âstrange new respectâ came with the mandatory caveat that we were still wrong to suggest increased immigration enforcement and a slower inflow of new workers might be part of the same package.
Although neoliberal globalists are often said to be opposed to industrial policy and strategic trade, that is not necessarily true. Neoliberals of the kind who have dominated U.S. policy under the two Bushes, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are not orthodox anti-government libertarians. They support a particular kind of industrial policy, whose emblem is not the American eagle but the Japanese goose.
Taking the side of ancient particularity in its long-standing quarrel with modern universalism, I warned in a July Commons post against the temptation to orient American policy towards China around the moralizing language of human rights that has dominated international discourse since the Second World War.
Much as the Brexit referendum anticipated the rise of the Trump presidency, the current UK Conservative government led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson may now be providing clues as to a possible future path for the post-Trump Republican Party in the United States.
Repatriating supply chains to home shores has become an increasingly fashionable topic in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Part of the rationale is to ensure that adequate redundancy and resiliency are built into our economies, even at the cost of âjust in timeâ inventory accumulation practices (which have prioritized short term profitability at a cost of the kinds of supply shocks we are experiencing today).
Professor Dan Drezner is again illustrating how we ended up with a misbegotten consensus on globalization built upon inadequate assumptions and shallow analysis. A couple of weeks ago, we encountered him badly mischaracterizing a study about the supposed value of trade liberalization. Breezing past that issue, he is back now with a more outlandish claim, that: âa world in which âtrade were balanced, domestic industry robust, and productivity risingâ is a world that not only does not exist, but very likely cannot existâ (emphasis in original).
German philosopher Hegel postulated that history progresses through thesis, antithesis and then synthesis. Today we are seeing the first two dynamics with trade policy and attitudes towards globalization; we desperately need the third.
In a recent post, Rachel Bovard rightly defended the notion that in certain instances national security considerations should supersede free trade considerations. She specifically cited the ban on Huawei in the context of a discussion of a recent Real Clear Markets column by economist John Tamny, who makes a traditional free market case against the ban on Huawei in the US market
Professor Dan Drezner has been crudely criticizing Senator Josh Hawley’s New York Times op-ed on U.S. withdrawal from the WTOâtreating it  âthe way one would treat an undergrad paper in global political economy,â awarding a C-minus, and offering the feedback that, âYou can do better work than this, Josh. Put in the effort, do more research and make sharper arguments next time.â He exposes the fundamental weakness of his critique though, with the claim that âHawley prefers exiting the WTO and rejecting the estimated $2.1 trillion in benefits from trade,â in the process demonstrating exactly what simplistic economic analyses of trade policy get wrong.
It is refreshing to see an increasing number of politicians and pundits from across the political spectrum calling for re-establishing their manufacturing base to address the vulnerabilities exposed in the wake of COVID-19. The latest is GOP Senator Josh Hawley, calling for the abolition of the World Trade Organization, in a NY Times Op-ed.
Sen. Josh Hawley recently opined in the New York Times about the need for the US to back out of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and engage the global economy with bilateral trade agreements that better reflect American interests.
Join our mailing list to receive our latest research, news, and commentary.
Subscribe to receive updates, previews, and more.
