Clintonian codswallop: Hillary and free trade

The FT's front page this morning carries one of the most worrying stories I've read in quite a while - Hillary Clinton doubts the benefits of free trade for America.

Of course, that's not exactly how she puts it. She says instead:

I want to have a more comprehensive and thoughtful trade policy for the 21st century.

However, her meaning was quite clear. She is contemplating abandoning the Doha round and taking a "time out" on new trade agreements.

She dresses this up intellectually with an appeal to the authority of economist Paul Samuelson:

I agree with Paul Samuelson, the very famous economist, who has recently spoken and written about how comparative advantage, as it is classically understood, may not be descriptive of the 21st century economy in which we find ourselves.

Now, Samuelson is a passionate advocate of free trade. When asked by the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam to "name me one proposition in all of the social sciences which is both true and non-trivial," Samuelson took several years to think about it, before responding "comparative advantage".

So has the Nobel prize winner really changed his mind? Of course not.

As Professor Willem Buiter explains, Samuelson's recent work simply deals with the effects of other countries beginning to develop in areas where previously they were weak. This erodes comparative advantage and may hit workers in the country originally enjoying an edge.

More directly he says of Mrs Clinton's use of Samuelson's work:

This statement is complete codswallop.

And, as I say, pretty worrying codswallop, too.

Comments

[Julian Cox]

And the FT has every reason to worry. Hillary Billary Clinton has been talking some very disconcerting cadswallop for a while. Let's play... "Who said it?"

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Tito
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers

1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

(Winners with all 6 correct answers win tonight's star prize: A long weekend in a 5-star jacuzzi in downtown Teheran with a well-chilled bottle of Veuve Clicquot...)

[Simon Stephenson]

I don't think this is merely an appeal to authority fallacy. Samuelson would genuinely be an authority on free trade and it would be quite legitimate to use his name in support of an argument with which he would be in agreement.

What this is, however, is the misrepresentation of Samuelson's views as being supportive of a position with which he would, in fact, be in opposition.

Breathtakingly dishonest, but are we surprised?

[Tony Francis]

Danny, I think you have made the mistake of taking Mrs. Clinton's statements at face value. When she speaks of "trade", it is code to the US labor unions: "I will support you, even if you aren't competitive in the world market. I will even erect trade barriers to protect you." Don't hold your breath waiting for this one. In the end, look at what international corporations have donated to her campaign, Bill's library fund, their legal fund, and all the rest. This will give you a clue about where her sentiments will eventualy come to rest. A similar argument is seen with "inspecting all sea containers that come into this country" - an impossiblity, but would add costs to imported goods, and help the US labor unions. I guess the unions must fall for this, hook, line and sinker, even if it isn't true. They always vote Democrat. But she is no more serious about this than much of everything else she says. Ever heard of Walmart? Need I say more?

[Mr Eugenides]

Hillary suspicious of free trade? Why, you'd almost have thought there was a big primary coming up in an important agricultural Midwestern state...