The base is concerned with the loss of well-paying industrial jobs and the disappearance of our manufacturing capacity. They are not economists who rely on fancy theories to justify the leakage of our jobs overseas. If these people are wrong, no one has clearly explained to them why this is so and why they should be pleased to be the victims of globalization.

But we're not talking about eliminating globalization, even though I doubt you could convince someone who lost his job that the money he saves on imported consumer goods makes it all worthwhile. We're talking about a single tariff that is specifically authorized by the terms of a negotiated trade agreement with China.

One tariff raised the "protectionist threat level" to orange? Come on, get a grip. This may be a stupid move, but it hardly portends a wholesale move toward protectionism. Before I believe that this is the beginning of a rejection of free trade and a turn toward isolationism, I'm going to need more evidence than a single tariff and dark musings about Obama's protectionist "base."

I even heard some wonk on the radio today say that this may be a sop to the protectionist wing of the party in return for free trade agreements with Colombia and some other country which I've forgotten. Also, China's balistic reaction may very well make it easier to reject other tariffs in the future, such as on textiles.

So calm down and go breathe in a bag, this is nothing to hyperventilate over.

One tariff raised the "protectionist threat level" to orange? Come on, get a grip. This may be a stupid move, but it hardly portends a wholesale move toward protectionism.

One tariff that's being met with reciprocity by the Chinese. That's how trade wars start.

Do you think that China is foolish enough to escalate this into a trade war? I suspect that is one war that Obama is just itching to fight. I think the Chinese recognize that they have more to lose, but they also can't been seen to do nothing. For them, the important thing is to not be seen as impotent, while doing nothing to give Obama an excuse to take further actions.

It's clear, from a pure efficiency and general welfare standpoint that free trade produces the best results.

From a geopolitical standpoint, however, i'd rather not put our entire industrial base and warmaking capacity in the hands of our closest peer competitor, who have managed to blend the worst aspects of 19th century totalitarianism and 19th century capitalism into the worst dystopia this side of the soviet union.

So anything that secures our industrial base and immiserates China more than it does us is probably a good strategic move at this point, as it is more likely to cause peasant unrest and render the regime less legitimate.

Just as there are no atheists in the foxhole, there are no advocates of globalization among the unemployed.

Blog posts about this tariff have become a bit tiresome, pardon the pun. I’m tired of reading arm-chair economists (and some real economists too) reduce arguments about free trade to a simple question about economic efficiency. The issue of trade is complex and requires a difficult balancing of a number of political considerations beyond economic efficiency. For example, as someone else noted, there are benefits to limiting trade with a potential military rival that are not captured by a purely economic metric. It is also very possible that losing a slew of jobs will do more to disrupt the social order (which will have its own economic costs) than imposing the tariff and having the price of tires go up $3. There are also questions about whether the theoretical costs to imposing a tariff hold true here.

It’s ironic that Alder is leading the charge on this issue. He had previously very astutely observed that, at times, liberal scientist will believe their expertise will resolve a political question. For example, scientists would claim that the Bush Administration was waging a war on science because the Administration refused to fully fund stem cell research. The reality, of course, is that whether to do stem cell research is a political question that can be informed by the science. In other words, science is only one part of the calculus, and scientists are not necessarily experts on the non-science-based factors in that calculus.

The same thing is true of economists and economic issues. Economists can tell you what empirical research or economic theory might say about a particular policy proposal. But since most policy proposals require a balancing beyond mere economic concerns, it makes no sense for economists to act like they are an expert on political economy theory and that there is only one question to ask (what proposal is most economically efficient?) on any economic issue.

I’m generally in favor of free trade for most of the reasons people favor free trade. But the decision to impose tariffs is often complicated and I’ve yet to see anyone actually deal with the potential nuance here. So you can continue to trot out political slogans regarding free trade, but you’re not going to convince anyone but the already converted. Perhaps that’s people’s intention.

That should be net importer.

We invited and they accepted.

Right, by the same logic that we invited 9/11 by basing troops in the Middle East. I don't think that way. And one tariff flowing each way hardly constitutes a "trade war" in any event.

We invited and they accepted.

Right, by the same logic that we invited 9/11 by basing troops in the Middle East. I don't think that way. And one tariff flowing each way hardly constitutes a "trade war" in any event.

Steve, let's say you traveled back in time 3 days and Obama wants to know if his tariff makes a trade war (or if you like, any adverse response) more likely, or less likely. Could you give him an answer?

The problem with this tariff is that it is going to kick of a round of rent seeking by both unions and politically connected industries. American workers are also consumers, and the tire unions are leaches on the backs of the American consumer.

The ignorance displayed by some of the commenters above is appalling. Ricardo explained how free trade benefits everybody 200 years ago, and it really should not be that hard a concept to grasp.

Ricardo explained how free trade benefits everybody 200 years ago, and it really should not be that hard a concept to grasp.

Such nonsense. Free trade will often leave people jobless, homeless, and dead. Now, you probably won't be one of those people, and I'm sure you don't care about them, but don't pretend like they don't exist.

There are only a few reasons that trade between U.S. states should be free and trade with foreign nations be otherwise. Cheap tires is not one of those reasons. Free trade is one of the few issues that most economists of all political persuasions support. Somewhere in the 85-90% range of all economists agree on it, even if the slice of VC readers at this moment is not overwhelmingly free trade.

This move is more than just a small tariff on one product from China. The petition was not supported by tire companies - it was brought by the United Steel Workers Union. Second, the grant of relief was purely discretionary - the President did not have to do anything. Third, the availability of relief is intended to lessen the impact on domestic industry when new competition arises to give domestic workers time to adjust. Here, the competition from China was not new. Finally, some guy on the news said that the petition did not allege any factual injury. You will have a hard time convincing me that it was not a give away to a political constituency. You should have a hard time convincing yourself.

Not that anyone is reading the comments anymore, but here is a link for posterity's sake.

AEA Survey Sept 2009

83% of AEA economists agree that trade should be free and unfettered, while only 10% disagree.