Rep. English’s Protectionist China Proposal Is Bad Economics

Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) recently wrote on this blog that passing anti-trade legislation against China should be a priority for the upcoming session of Congress.  English complains of trade deficits, rampant subsidies, and intellectual property concerns, among other things.

This is not a good idea.

First, it must be recognized that trade with China has produced enormous benefits to the United States.  Thanks to Chinese imports, American consumers are buying cheaper products, allowing them to save more money–money that can be used to buy a house, spend on college, or pay for health care expenses.

Rep. English might want to review some fundamental economic principles, because protectionist legislation against China or any other trading partner is bad economics.  Last summer, 1,028 economists from across the ideological spectrum announced their opposition to any anti-China trade legislation.  More recently, 105 CEOs, representing American companies worth more than $3.2 trillion and employing almost 7 million people, expressed their opposition as well.

Disagreements in trade policy between China and the United States should instead be resolved through diplomatic channels, and that’s what is happening right now with early success.  Rather than enact protectionist legislation that would punish both countries, let’s try to support public policy that promotes international commerce, robust job creation, and is firmly grounded in proven economics.  English’s proposal fails to meet these criteria.