Skip Navigation
Daniel Indiviglio

Daniel Indiviglio - Daniel Indiviglio was an associate editor at The Atlantic from 2009 through 2011. He is now the Washington, D.C.-based columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. He is also a 2011 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow through the Phillips Foundation. More

Indiviglio has also written for Forbes. Prior to becoming a journalist, he spent several years working as an investment banker and a consultant.

Implications Of The China Tire Tariff

By Daniel Indiviglio
Sep 14 2009, 10:37 AM ET Comment

Markets are generally unhappy about the news that President Obama recently approved higher tariffs for Chinese-made tires. Such protectionist moves reduce trade, and ultimately, prosperity for both nations involved. The Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics blog has a nice survey of opinions from several economists'. They range from appropriate to panicked.

First, a rational reaction from J. Bradford Delong:

Barack Obama does something really stupid: tire tariffs. [..] The Trade Act, Section 421, gives the U.S. the right to impose tariffs in response to a surge. It doesn't make the surge a crime, or a violation. And it doesn't require the U.S. to impose tariffs-especially if imposing them would be a really bad idea for U.S. consumers.


I think this is, by far, the most accurate response on the page. Stupid is likely the best adjective to describe the action. It's likely intended to save or create U.S. jobs. In reality, it will just drive up costs for consumers and anger the Chinese. They have reportedly already filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization.

The most obvious fear I see here is that China will retaliate. According to a separate article in the Wall Street Journal, they have already begun investigations into the U.S. "dumping" poultry and auto products in the Chinese market. The last thing you want during a global recession is a trade war. That would slow recovery across-the-board.

Then there are the more panicked responses to the action. One such response can be found by Peter Boockvar of The Big Picture. He echoes Ben Stein in "Ferris Bueller's Day off," concluding:

Over 7 days right before and after the Smoot-Hawley act was passed in mid June 1930, the DJIA fell 15% but got most of the decline back by late July before falling more than 30% into year end. Let's hope the just announced tire tariff on China and their possible response is just a one off spat but global stocks are down as a result.


Smoot-Hawley was definitely bad, and any economist I've ever talked to has told me it was one of the major reasons for the severity of the Great Depression. But this isn't quite Smoot-Hawley -- yet. If a trade war does result, and the U.S. ramps up its protectionism in response, then such anxiety is legitimate. I don't see that happening, however. I just can't believe that Obama's economists would allow that. Whatever lobbyist pressures the administration is feeling, they can't compare to prospect of potentially creating a double-dip recession due to bad trade policy.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Why Does the Laziest Country in Europe Work the Most? Why Does the Laziest Country in Europe Work the Most?
Imagining Hemingway's Marriage Imagining Ernest Hemingway's Marriage
Infographic: The Average Person Gets 9,672 Minor Injuries in a Lifetime The Average Person Gets 9,672 Minor Injuries in a Lifetime
Silicon Valley's Next Big Thing: Beer Silicon Valley's Next Big Thing: Beer
Could Latino Voters Turn Deep-Red Texas Democratic by 2020? Could Latino Voters Turn Deep-Red Texas Democratic by 2020?

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

The Golden Gate Bridge Turns 75

May 29, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)