David Brooks' column is full of nonsense on trade this morning. The point is to propagandize on behalf of current trade policy, which is taking a beating in popular opinion as of late. Brooks includes a wide range of factors which are somehow supposed to imply that the current trade policy is good. Just to to take a couple of my favorites, Brooks points out from 1991 to 2007 the trade deficit grew to $818 billion from $31 billion. "Yet, .... during that time the U.S. created 28 million jobs and the unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent from 6.8 percent." Let's see, according to my calculator, the sun came up 5,840 times during this period. Therefore, by Brooks logic, trade must facilitate astronomical processes. For those familiar with economic theory, the expected impact of trade would be on wages, not the number of jobs. And most workers have seen very small wage gains over this 16 year period as the bulk of the benefits of productivity growth have gone to highly-paid workers. Brooks also cites a study by Robert Lawrence and Martin Baily that purports to show that 90 percent of the jobs lost in manufacturing are due to domestic causes. I have no idea what this is supposed to show. A trade deficit of 6 percent of GDP (now closer 5 percent) corresponds to at least 3 million lost manufacturing jobs. Does it make any difference for anything in the world how these lost jobs are divided between the loss of existing jobs or the failure to create new jobs? It certainly doesn't matter for any economic theory with which I am familiar. Brooks also extols the fact that the people in this country have lots of kids -- that's great if you like global warming, otherwise it doesn't seem like such a great thing. Perhaps the best line is that the United States "benefits from low levels of corruption." This is probably because actions like having a CEO wreck a company, and then get a hundred million dollar severance package, are perfectly legal. But the most serious inaccuracy in the Brooks piece is the claim that "once there was a bipartisan consensus behind free trade." This is not true. The bipartisan consensus was behind trade policies that put less educated workers in competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. There has never been support for measures that would put our investment bankers, our lawyers, our doctors and our columnists in direct competition with workers in the developing world. (Perhaps Brooks does not know that if I opened a newspaper, and staffed it with foreign reporters and columnists who I quite explicitly paid one-half the wage of their comparably qualified U.S. counterparts, I would be arrested.) The public has turned against trade policies that were designed to lower the wages of middle class workers and have had this effect. Brooks is among the small group of people who have benefited from these trade policies. Now he is unhappy, that's the story.
--Dean Baker
