Throughout the post-World War II era, the United States has tilted heavily to being a champion of free, open and lucrative global trade. Protectionism is a word that carries negative, not noble, connotations in the realm of commerce.
Free-trade advocates have pointed to protectionism, and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in particular, as either a contributing cause or a reaction that prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930s. Depicting a link between protectionism and the longest extended economic downturn in recent memory has helped the cause of free trade advocates throughout the past 60 years.
That is not to say that U.S. trade policy has been unquestioned. Labor unions in particular have offered the view that free trade that is "unfair" has ended or severely disrupted the American dream in many households.
The counter-argument is that corporate participants in an innovative, growing economy must have the flexibility to: a.) operate profitably by keeping costs down; and b.) consider the entire world as both their market and their potential source of labor and materials and components.
The pro-trade counter argument has been and continues to be convincing, but business owners in North America have paused to ask about the limits of this thinking. At times, producers of basic materials, such as steel and copper, and of the products made from these materials have been among those asking the questions.
Many of their questions have been summarized in an essay written by steel industry researcher and analyst Michelle Applebaum. (The essay, "Buy American—Losing Our Virginity to Trade Terrorism," can be found at www.RecyclingToday.com.)
Among her strongly worded views:
• "In my nearly 30 years as an equity analyst covering the steel sector, I’ve seen that the steel trade outside of America is often managed trade and is anything but free. Americans aren’t told this though."
• "Many of our trading partners excel at creating trade barriers and then calling us protectionist. They put tariffs on our goods; they subsidize their domestic industries with not only cash but [also] lax environmental standards, raw material export restraints, transportation, energy and other subsidies; channels of distribution are controlled by steel mills themselves; [not] to mention currency manipulation."
A trade magazine editor with a communication degree is about the last person who can settle such an important U.S. policy debate. But asking, with a genuinely open mind, whether we have pursued the "free or fair?" question in regard to trade in depth from all short-term and long-term angles seems reasonable.
Explore the March 2009 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
Latest from Recycling Today
- EMR focuses on graphite recovery
- Alumetal of Poland issues verifies recycled content
- Bolder Industries receives grant for European project
- Regenx says US facility back online
- Cliffs has money-losing Q3
- BIR Autumn 2024: Supply challenges poised to grow
- Befesa reports double-digit adjusted EBITDA growth in Q3
- Companies partner to standardize build of chemical recycling plants