Ag Economists Say Both Presidential Candidates Bad for Trade

A majority of agriculture economists surveyed in the September Ag Economists Monthly Monitor say that both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would hurt trade in the United States as president. Of the 70 ag economists surveyed for the Monthly Monitor, 86% say a Trump administration would hurt United States trade, while 55% say a Harris administration would do the same.

“‘Farmers are definitely concerned about trade,’ says Michael Langemeir, an agricultural economist from Purdue University who helps author the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer and is one of the economists surveyed by Farm Journal each month,” AgWeb’s Editors reported. “‘We don’t ask specific questions related to tariffs in the Ag Economy Barometer, but one question we do ask is if they expect exports to increase, decrease or stay the same? Really, this is the most pessimistic they’ve been for about five years with regard to trade.'”

US Business Group Concerned Over Both Candidates

Bloomberg’s Eric Martin reported that “the head of the biggest US business lobbying group criticized both presidential nominees as ‘anti-trade,’ saying their ideas are bad for American companies and individuals.”

“Broad tariffs, like the sweeping 60% duty on China that Republican Donald Trump has floated, would hurt American manufacturers that import components and parts, said Suzanne Clark, president and chief executive officer of the US Chamber of Commerce,” Martin reported. “Yet Vice President Kamala Harris appears poised to continue President Joe Biden’s avoidance of new free-trade deals if elected on Nov. 5, Clark said. Harris was one of 10 senators to vote against the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade in 2020, citing its lack of provisions to address climate change. She criticized the deal again last month.”

“‘We have two presidential candidates who are anti-trade,’ Clark said in an interview at Bloomberg’s Washington office on Wednesday,” according to Martin’s reporting. “‘We believe that’s bad for America, and we believe that’s bad for American families and American communities.'”

Ag Economists Views Mixed on Tariffs

AgWeb’s Editors reported that “tariffs are a tool both the former Trump administration and the current Biden/Harris administration have used.”

“During the first presidential debate, Trump didn’t waver from his staunch stance on tariffs and trade, reiterating his plan to use tariffs to protect U.S. industries and increase revenues. Trump reinforced his plan to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods and a 60% tariff on goods from China,” AgWeb reported. “During the debate, Harris stated tariffs are essentially a ‘sales tax’ on American households. The Biden/Harris administration recently extended the Trump-era tariffs, while also imposing its own set of tariffs in May. Biden directed the U.S. Trade Representative to ‘increase tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on $18 billion of imports from China to protect American workers and businesses.'”

In addition, Bloomberg’s Nancy Cook reported that on Tuesday, “Trump defended his plans to overhaul the US economy through dramatic tariff increases and more direct consultation with the Federal Reserve, arguing that his policies would result in substantial growth despite projections that his agenda would fuel inflation and spike the national debt.”

“The former president shrugged off the possibility that his proposed tariffs might disrupt supply chains or squeeze small businesses, saying companies would rapidly return manufacturing to the US to avoid the levies,” Cook reported. “…The Republican nominee’s claims were warmly received by attendees at the event, who cheered his argument that dramatically increasing tariffs on foreign goods would protect ‘the companies that we have here and the new companies that will move in.'”

But “the controversy over tariffs and if they’re a good trade policy tool is long standing,” AgWeb’s Editors reported. “The September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists: ‘Do tariffs work in trade policy?’ Economists views were mixed:

• “Tariffs can work in trade policy — that’s why nations continue to use them. The complex part that extends beyond the tariff action is potential long-term repercussions that can result from trade flow changes.”
• “In limited cases, typically only if they result in a policy response in the targeted country. Much of the time, tariffs are like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
• “Tariffs provide short-term gains but have always failed relative to free trade in the long term.”
• “Absolutely, when properly applied.”
• “Not over the long term. They tend to affect who gets to supply different markets around the world.”