I really don't have a clue on that one, but that's the view that the NYT attributed to the French finance minister. Let's see, a low dollar makes foreign goods imported into the United States more expensive. It also make U.S. exports cheaper for people living in foreign countries. On both sides we should see an improvement in our trade balance as imports decrease and exports increase. So why would this increase demands for protection? It would be appropriate for reporters to point out that these sorts of assertions by high level officials don't make sense just as it would be appropriate to point out that if they were wrong if they made a wrong assertion about a historic fact of importance. As a more general issue, it would be appropriate to point out that the word "protectionism" is used simply to refer to trading practices of which the speaker disapproves. There is no, as in zero, as in none, economic theory that says that protectionist barriers on manufactured goods are in any way more harmful than the protectionist barriers that the United States has on highly paid professional services, like doctors' and lawyers' services. The main reason for the different treatment of the two forms of protection seems to be that reporters (and economists) are more likely to identify with doctors and lawyers than with textile workers and autoworkers.
--Dean Baker