Categorized | Trade

Kerry drinks the trade Kool-Aid, but trade agreements do NOT create jobs

Reposted from the Economic  Policy Institute blog



Kerry drinks the trade Kool-Aid, but trade agreements do NOT create jobs


Robert Scott  |  March 29th, 2013  |  Economic Policy Institute

Secretary of State John Kerry bought into the hype around trade in a speech this week in Paris when he claimed that the proposed U.S.–EU trade and investment agreement could help Europe emerge from the economic crisis. Kerry claimed that the proposed U.S.–EU trade agreement “may be one of the best ways of helping Europe to break out of this cycle [and] have growth.” As I’ve explained before, trade agreements do not create jobs. This is not some proprietary EPI view on trade – it is a standard view straight out of economics text books.

The issue is simple: it is trade balances—the net of exports and imports—that can affect jobs. Unless trade agreements promise to reduce our too-high trade deficit, they will have no positive effect on jobs. Even worse, past trade agreements have actually been associated with larger trade deficits in their aftermath.

This is mainstream (neo-classical) trade theory, as explained by Paul Krugman in “Trade Does Not Equal Jobs.” Responding (in 2010) specifically to claims that the Korea–U.S. trade agreement could be a driver of recovery, he pointed out that in macroeconomic terms, the United Sates had too little spending on domestically-produced goods and services, with spending defined by:

Y = C + I + G + X –M

Where C is consumer spending, I is investment spending, G is government purchases of goods and services, X is exports and M is imports. He noted that while trade agreements lead to higher X, they also lead to higher M. Exports support demand for domestically produced goods, so higher X increases employment. However, the growth of imports reduces demand for domestically produced goods, which reduces domestic employment. Professor Krugman asserted that “on average, they’re a wash.”

So, a trade and investment agreement between the United States and the European Union is not going to be the salvation for either the U.S. or the EU economy. The roots of the EU’s economic problems, as in the U.S., lie in the global financial crisis and a string of related housing and banking crises that began in 2007. But the similarities end there. The U.S. responded to the crisis with a strong fiscal stimulus in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2008. Although the initial EU response also involved some stimulus, Europeans have embraced fiscal austerity for the past several years and the results have been shockingly bad. In January, average unemployment in the Euro area reached 11.9 percent, vs. 7.9 percent in the United States (U.S. unemployment declined to 7.7% in February).

There are only three ways out of the crisis in Europe, and none of them involves a trade agreement with the United States. The hardest hit areas in the south of Europe are Greece and Spain, (where unemployment now exceeds 26 percent), Portugal (17.6 percent), Italy (11.7 percent), and Cyprus (14.7 percent), the most recent crisis victim where unemployment could double in the next year. These countries suffer from fundamental competitiveness problems that result from a decade of price and wage growth fueled by capital inflows from Germany and other wealthy, surplus nations. The key question for the Southern countries is how they are going to grow and recover in the medium term—over the next decade. As EPI’s Josh Bivens has explained, “A key barrier to a country like Greece achieving growth in the coming decade is the lack of an independent monetary and exchange-rate policy.” Exit from the Euro would allow Europe’s southern countries to recover much more quickly than if they remained in the Euro area, particular if the EU maintains its commitment to austerity in the face of massive and widespread unemployment.

The other two choices for a sustained recovery in Europe would require substantial and continuing macro-economic stimulus. The first would require Europe to follow the model of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank and engage in much more expansionary monetary policy. Although the European Central Bank has extended crisis financing to Cyprus, Greece and other countries, it remains committed to very restrictive, overall monetary policies. The other alternative is for Germany and other wealthy countries in the North to pursue expansionary fiscal policy, in effect lifting poorer countries in the south out of recession. However, expansionary monetary and fiscal policies have both been ruled out by the EU, which is thoroughly committed to austerity. Thus, we are left with exit from the Euro as the only viable path to a relatively quick recovery for much of southern Europe. As Paul Krugman has pointed out repeatedly in the past, the Euro model was flawed from the beginning, in part because the Euro area lacks a central government.

Europe’s problems are largely internal, and they cannot be solved by a trade agreement with the U.S.—at least not in a way that would serve the interests of working Americans. To create the millions of jobs Europe needs through trade with the US would require a massive increase in European exports and in the U.S. trade deficit. This would in turn mean the loss of millions of jobs here in the U.S. as imported goods replaced domestically manufactured competitors.

Efforts to negotiate new trade agreements are divisive and divert attention from the core economic problem that confronts both the United States and the European Union: the continuing need for fiscal and monetary stimulus until excess unemployment is eliminated. Premature efforts to reduce deficits in both Europe (through austerity programs) and in the United States (through sequestration and additional deficit cutting now under discussion) simply increase the threat that unemployment will rise in both areas. Secretary Kerry’s claims aside, trade won’t help create jobs in the U.S. or the EU.


3 Responses to “Kerry drinks the trade Kool-Aid, but trade agreements do NOT create jobs”

  1. Robert says:

    Unfortunately, trade agreements have become a form of foreign aid and a method to “buy” friends. In addition to costing Americans their jobs, new friends have certainly not been bought via stupid trade.

  2. Will Wilkin says:

    This article opens with the correct assertion that so-called “free trade” policies do not create jobs but have actually destroyed them for the USA due to offshoring our production by globalized corporations that write these policies. That offshoring has been the centeral cause of America’s economic decline, which was already deepening even before the financial crisis and which will not be reversed by any amount of Fed bailouts of the financial sector.

    Which brings us to all the flaws in this article. No amount of stimulus or bank bailouts will bring back American manufacturing. Until we repeal the “free trade” policies and effect a strategic national economic plan to ONshore manufacturing, all govt and fed moneys poured into the crisis end up leaking out the bottom through trade deficits. Washington DC and Wall Street seem blind to the problem but really the explanation is darker: they are selling out the American people and the future of our economic ecosystem through free trade offshoring that has made the 1% fabulously rich, and a small amount of their riches from offshoring our economy has been used to purchase the Congress and both political parties.

    Mr. Scott starts out with clear recognition of the place of free trade policies in our decline, but vastly underestimates the historic destruction of America that has resulted. Instead of parroting the deceptive official unemployment statistics, he should report how the REAL unemployment in America is well over 20% According to John Williams at, that would be the official unemployment rate if they were still counted as they were up to 1994.

    Considering that globalized corporations, however nominally “American” by location of headquarters or inclorporation, are actually powerful international organizations with zero national loyalty the USA, the officers, executives and lobbyists for these corporations should be made to register as the foreign agents they are, and thus also be barred from contributing money to political campaigns or advertising designed to influence American politics. They should also be barred from writing our trade agreements and from staffing our Executive branch regulatory agencies and from staffing Congressional offices.

    Ending the purchase and control of American politics by these foreign agents loyal only to the profits of global corporations would go a long way in restoring our republic as a government representative of the interests of the American people.

  3. David Albano says:


    The loyalty presented by WASHINGTON, is to profit not to the citizens of America but to their corporate masters they work for. Until WASHINGTON is get it there is no such thing as Free Trade. States and local government are bankrupt, roads and bridges are in terrible shape, the schools are falling apart plus other problems on the list. But they keep rewarding companies with tax breaks to screw the American workers. If the powers that be don’t realize that you can’t run government without money, money comes from taxes, if people don’t have money the tax base goes to hell. What will it take to stop this crap about free trade make jobs. Look around Washington and try to B/S a little more about how will we are doing, open your eyes.


Friends Don’t Let Friends Buy Imports

Action: Sign on to 21st Century Trade Agreement Principles

Let's tell Congress how to improve trade agreements to benefit America.

Please sign your organization or company on to these 21st Century Trade Agreement Principles.

Sign up to receive periodic updates


Ian Fletcher’s: “The Conservative Case Against Free Trade”

Ian Fletcher’s “Free Trade Doesn’t Work”