If former US President Donald Trump returns to the White House, he would likely impose sweeping tariffs against China that, together with his tax proposals, could cost Americans some $500 billion per year. History suggests why he would forge ahead with a policy agenda that would harm lower-income households the most.
CHICAGO – With Donald Trump still leading in polls ahead of the US presidential election, many are wondering how a second Trump administration would approach China. Trump’s stance on purely political issues is unclear. He recently remarked that Taiwan should pay for US defense, hinting at an unwillingness to defend the island from attack by China, even as his former – and perhaps future – advisers advocate a large military buildup in Asia. But Trump’s economic approach to China is much less ambiguous: the two countries are competitors, and America must win.
In this sense, Trump and the Republican Party are not so different from US President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. The Biden-Harris administration kept most of Trump’s China tariffs, and intensified the focus on the high-tech sector – particularly electric vehicles and batteries, which China has come to dominate. Politicians in both major parties have expressed concerns that the United States’ national security could be jeopardized should it be unable to manufacture its own clean tech, and that it could fall further behind in an industry that is important for the renewables-based economy of the future.
In his second presidential run, Trump has proposed more tariffs: a 10% tariff on every import, a 60% tariff on all Chinese imports, and a 100% tariff on all cars made outside the US. This worries many economists because these sweeping tariffs, along with Trump’s other tax proposals, could cost Americans $500 billion per year, a burden that would be borne disproportionately by lower-income households, which rely more on cheap imports.
Observers may wonder whether the resulting economic headwinds would prevent the US from imposing such high tariffs were Trump to return to the White House. The answer is probably no. History suggests why the government would forge ahead with a policy agenda that would harm average Americans.
The US has always valued being on the technological frontier. After World War I and World War II, when other Allied countries sought land and money as war reparations from Germany, the US focused on securing German patents to boost American innovation. And it worked: access to German intellectual property after WWI significantly increased US patents in organic chemistry, a field in which the Germans were world leaders at the time.
A more recent example was the US-Japan trade war of the 1980s. Back then, many Americans viewed Japan’s rising market share in the semiconductor and automotive sectors as a threat to the US economy. To address concerns over the “dumping” of these goods, American leaders pursued exceptionally aggressive policies against Japan.
Project Syndicate is returning to Climate Week NYC with an even more expansive program. Join us live on September 22 as we welcome speakers from around the world at our studio in Manhattan to address critical dimensions of the climate debate.
Register Now
For starters, the Democratic administration of President Jimmy Carter requested that Japanese automakers build factories in the US. Following that, the Republican administration of President Ronald Reagan imposed 100% tariffs on $300 million worth of Japanese imports in 1987.
The two trade wars are similar. Back then, like now, the US government sought to secure America’s economic supremacy, an agenda that commanded strong popular support across the political spectrum, despite large net losses to American consumers and firms. The tariffs imposed by the US in both instances violated international rules set by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and its successor, the World Trade Organization. Even the recent political rhetoric against China, which warns of future military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, echoes the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, which often harkened back to WWII.
But there are important differences between the two cases. Japan depended entirely on the US for its military defense in the 1980s. American political leaders were therefore confident that any pressure campaign – whether reasonable or not – would ultimately be successful. There is no such assurance with China.
China’s ability to respond to US demands is also limited by its domestic concerns. In 1990, per capita income in Japan and the US was at a similar level, whereas Chinese per capita income is much less, currently around 17% of the US level. The Chinese government has invested heavily in lifting its population into the middle class and establishing itself as a global leader in high-tech sectors, which will limit its room for maneuver.
At a time of huge political uncertainty, one thing is clear: the US government will maintain its aggressive stance toward China, a policy that, as with Japan in the 1980s, has bipartisan support. But while Japan conceded to most of America’s demands, China may not be willing or able to be so obliging. Chinese and US leaders will need to recognize each other’s aims and limitations if they want to avoid tremendous economic losses for their people.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
To secure a lasting peace, Ukraine’s allies must make Vladimir Putin understand that he cannot dictate the terms. Guaranteeing Ukraine’s security will require increased military support, a clear path to NATO membership, and international support for President Volodymyr Zelensky’s peace plan.
outline steps that global leaders can take to ensure a Ukrainian victory and deter future Russian aggression.
The International Monetary Fund’s surcharge policy has led to an unseemly state of affairs: countries in financial distress have become the largest source of net revenue to the Fund in recent years. These surcharges must be eliminated or, at the very least, adjusted to reduce the excessive burden on highly indebted countries.
decry the counterproductive practice of imposing additional fees on countries in debt distress.
CHICAGO – With Donald Trump still leading in polls ahead of the US presidential election, many are wondering how a second Trump administration would approach China. Trump’s stance on purely political issues is unclear. He recently remarked that Taiwan should pay for US defense, hinting at an unwillingness to defend the island from attack by China, even as his former – and perhaps future – advisers advocate a large military buildup in Asia. But Trump’s economic approach to China is much less ambiguous: the two countries are competitors, and America must win.
In this sense, Trump and the Republican Party are not so different from US President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. The Biden-Harris administration kept most of Trump’s China tariffs, and intensified the focus on the high-tech sector – particularly electric vehicles and batteries, which China has come to dominate. Politicians in both major parties have expressed concerns that the United States’ national security could be jeopardized should it be unable to manufacture its own clean tech, and that it could fall further behind in an industry that is important for the renewables-based economy of the future.
In his second presidential run, Trump has proposed more tariffs: a 10% tariff on every import, a 60% tariff on all Chinese imports, and a 100% tariff on all cars made outside the US. This worries many economists because these sweeping tariffs, along with Trump’s other tax proposals, could cost Americans $500 billion per year, a burden that would be borne disproportionately by lower-income households, which rely more on cheap imports.
Observers may wonder whether the resulting economic headwinds would prevent the US from imposing such high tariffs were Trump to return to the White House. The answer is probably no. History suggests why the government would forge ahead with a policy agenda that would harm average Americans.
The US has always valued being on the technological frontier. After World War I and World War II, when other Allied countries sought land and money as war reparations from Germany, the US focused on securing German patents to boost American innovation. And it worked: access to German intellectual property after WWI significantly increased US patents in organic chemistry, a field in which the Germans were world leaders at the time.
A more recent example was the US-Japan trade war of the 1980s. Back then, many Americans viewed Japan’s rising market share in the semiconductor and automotive sectors as a threat to the US economy. To address concerns over the “dumping” of these goods, American leaders pursued exceptionally aggressive policies against Japan.
PS Events: Climate Week NYC 2024
Project Syndicate is returning to Climate Week NYC with an even more expansive program. Join us live on September 22 as we welcome speakers from around the world at our studio in Manhattan to address critical dimensions of the climate debate.
Register Now
For starters, the Democratic administration of President Jimmy Carter requested that Japanese automakers build factories in the US. Following that, the Republican administration of President Ronald Reagan imposed 100% tariffs on $300 million worth of Japanese imports in 1987.
The two trade wars are similar. Back then, like now, the US government sought to secure America’s economic supremacy, an agenda that commanded strong popular support across the political spectrum, despite large net losses to American consumers and firms. The tariffs imposed by the US in both instances violated international rules set by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and its successor, the World Trade Organization. Even the recent political rhetoric against China, which warns of future military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, echoes the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, which often harkened back to WWII.
But there are important differences between the two cases. Japan depended entirely on the US for its military defense in the 1980s. American political leaders were therefore confident that any pressure campaign – whether reasonable or not – would ultimately be successful. There is no such assurance with China.
China’s ability to respond to US demands is also limited by its domestic concerns. In 1990, per capita income in Japan and the US was at a similar level, whereas Chinese per capita income is much less, currently around 17% of the US level. The Chinese government has invested heavily in lifting its population into the middle class and establishing itself as a global leader in high-tech sectors, which will limit its room for maneuver.
At a time of huge political uncertainty, one thing is clear: the US government will maintain its aggressive stance toward China, a policy that, as with Japan in the 1980s, has bipartisan support. But while Japan conceded to most of America’s demands, China may not be willing or able to be so obliging. Chinese and US leaders will need to recognize each other’s aims and limitations if they want to avoid tremendous economic losses for their people.