SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
working class
Can We Do Better Than Trumpian or Neoliberal Trade Policy? Yes.
Trump’s program and the neoliberal policies that came before him have substantial differences, but both preserve and even worsen the great economic inequalities and uneven power arrangements that dominate our society. We can do better.
Aug 05, 2025
U. S. President Donald Trump has remade the international trading system by ending the so-called “free trade” era and bringing back protectionism. In doing so, he has created massive uncertainty in the U.S. and global economies and has thrown into disarray the traditional left-right divide on international trade. However, as left-wing economist Arthur MacEwan argues in the interview that follows, neoliberal regimes and Trumpian tariffs are not the only options for organizing international trade. As an alternative, he makes the case for a progressive U.S. world trade policy. MacEwan is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Boston. Among his many publications are 25 years of columns in the progressive magazine Dollars & Sense. His most recent book is Ask Dr. Dollar: Essays on Economic Power, Inequality, and Climate Change.
C. J. Polychroniou: Trump has made trade tariffs a key component of his foreign policy strategy. In doing so, he is trying to rewire the global economy in a manner that will be serving U.S. interests. Indeed, the plan behind Trump’s protectionist policies seems to be the improvement of U.S. economic competitiveness, bringing manufacturing back to the United States, and paying off the deficit. Is the bet paying off or is this a strategic blunder since tariffs are putting the squeeze on businesses and consumers and causing significant uncertainty?
Arthur MacEwan: Tariffs are unlikely to regenerate manufacturing in the United States, and especially important, tariffs are not likely to lead to a substantial increase of jobs in manufacturing.
The changes in U.S. manufacturing have not resulted simply because of competition from production in China and other countries. Production in manufacturing between 2000 and 2024 was relatively stagnant, rising by only 2.4% in this period while overall GDP (adjusted for inflation) rose by 65%. The manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP dropped from 15% to 10%. A significant portion of this was, indeed, the replacement of domestically produced goods by imports.
However, another significant part of the decline was due to the fall of the U.S. share of manufactured exports to global markets, as China replaced the U.S. as the leading supplier of manufactured goods to the rest of the world. In 2000 the U.S. exported $648 billion of manufactured goods, almost three times as much as China’s $220 billion. But in 2024, China’s export of manufactured goods had risen to $3.26 trillion, while the U.S. amount had risen to only $1.24 trillion. U.S. tariffs on imports from China (or elsewhere) are not going to do anything to restore the global market for U.S. manufactured exports.
And then there are the jobs. A primary rationale offered for the Trump tariffs is to restore jobs in manufacturing. Yet, that 2.4% increase of manufacturing output was accompanied by a 26% decline of workers in manufacturing—from 17.2 million in 2000 to 12.8 million in 2024. Automation, which increased output per worker by almost 40%, accounted for a large amount of the employment decline. U.S. tariffs will not replace the jobs—the many, many jobs—lost to automation.
Furthermore, and somewhat ironically, while tariffs might seem to favor U.S. production over imports for the domestic market, those tariffs will also undercut U.S. production by raising the prices of inputs. U.S. manufacturing, now and in a potential future, is highly dependent on imports of raw materials and parts. Tariffs will raise the price of these inputs, reducing any overall shift to domestic production.
There is no way of getting around the price problem, and it is much larger than the difficulties caused by the rising prices of inputs to manufacturing production. The whole purpose of tariffs is to raise the price of imported goods so that domestic production will be able to compete with the imports! If, for example, no tariffs were imposed on China-produced electric cars, they would make large inroads in the U.S. market for electric cars, replacing the more expensive U.S.-produced models. But with the tariffs, the China-produced cars become more expensive in the U.S. and the U.S.-produced cars might be able to compete.
In other words, U.S. buyers—the population in general—pay higher prices to generate more domestic production of goods now imported. Theoretically, this could be worth it, as I will take up shortly, but it is unlikely to be popular.
All in all, the extent to which the new tariffs will succeed in generating more domestic manufacturing is questionable. However much new manufacturing takes place, the creating of new manufacturing jobs will be much less. And, in our role as consumers, none of us will be pleased by the higher prices.
Worse still, the tax—and the tariff is a tax—will fall disproportionally on low-income people. In effect, the tariff/tax is a sales tax, raising the cost of purchases. Low-income people spend a higher proportion of their incomes on purchases, while high-income people spend a smaller proportion of their income on purchases. Thus, the tariff/tax is what we call a “regressive” tax.
Certainly, this appears to be an economic and political blunder. But Trump and his minions, crying “American First” and stressing the nationalism and xenophobia of a tariff-based economy, might get away with it.
C. J. Polychroniou: Free trade agreements have been a hallmark of neoliberalism while left-wing parties have stood for the most part in support of protectionist policies. Does this mean that Trump’s obsession with tariffs has put an end to the traditional left-right divide on trade policy?Arthur MacEwan: It is correct that many people on the left have responded to neoliberalism by calling for the protection of U.S. production from foreign imports. Yet, there are important elements of neoliberalism that cannot be characterized by “free trade” but, instead, are protectionist. The U.S. has used international trade agreements to extend the U.S. system of patents and copyrights. This amounts to protecting the monopolistic position of, especially, large pharmaceutical and large high-tech companies. Moreover, “free trade” agreements tend to include dispute resolution procedures that are highly favorable to business interests. For example, if new environmental regulations are established to reduce imports of Canadian tar-sands oil (which is especially bad for the environment), the trade agreement gives the Canadian oil-producing companies the right to sue because their profits have been lost.
Nonetheless, “free trade” has come to mean opening domestic markets to imports without restriction. It is understandable why workers and people on the left oppose such openings. Workers understandably fear that they will lose their jobs and not be able to obtain reasonably equivalent new jobs. Workers’ power and the power of their unions is undermined by the “free trade” of neoliberalism. At the same time, by giving businesses more options—e.g., the option of importing goods instead of producing at home—the power of business is enhanced.
So, I think it best to see the left-right divide on international trade as a divide over power. If international commerce would be organized in a way that would maintain or even increase the power of workers, it would have the support of the left—but the right would not be so happy.
C. J. Polychroniou: Are there other ways to organize U.S. international trade besides neoliberal free trade agreements and Trumpian tariffs?Arthur MacEwan: Disputes over how to organize international commerce are usually structured by a simplistic dichotomy between “free trade” and Trumpian tariffs (or other forms of restricting trade). Yet, there are alternatives. In particular, it is possible to set out a progressive form of U.S. policy on international commerce.
One element in the foundation of a progressive trade policy would be recognition that there are real gains that can be obtained, and should be preserved, from international commerce. Some of these gains are economic—there are goods and services that can be produced more effectively in some places than in others due to differences, for example, in natural resources and in the historically developed skills and specializations in different places. There are also great cultural, culinary, and scientific gains that can be obtained by international connectedness.
Also, a progressive trade policy would be based on protecting workers and their power, not on protecting jobs. However, many workers and progressives see the trade problem in terms of jobs being destroyed. For example, when more cars and car parts are imported from other countries, jobs are lost in the U.S. auto industry. But this does not mean that a progressive trade policy should throw up tariffs to protect those jobs. There is nothing intrinsically more valuable about those jobs than many other jobs. It is workers, not their jobs, that need protecting. Just like workers who lose their jobs because of automation or because their bosses made stupid mistakes, workers who lose their jobs to foreign competition—which is not the workers’ fault—should be protected. And protecting workers means protecting their power.
Because it is workers, not jobs, that should be protected, it becomes clear that a progressive trade policy depends on a progressive domestic policy. For example, a national single-payer health care program (such as Medicare for All), would ensure than workers who lost their jobs for whatever reason would not lose their health care. Similarly, higher education and skills training should be free, so that, if workers lost their jobs, their children would not lose their educational opportunities and the workers themselves could be readily trained for other jobs.
Further, those other jobs need to have reasonable wages, which requires a progressive domestic policy of generating higher wages and reducing inequality. Good places to start would be with pushing the minimum wage up and up and reinforcing the opportunities for workers to form powerful unions. Also, workers need to eat while they are getting retrained, which means a progressive trade policy would provide income during the retaining period.
Still, there are times in the U.S. and elsewhere when tariffs or other forms of protection could be justified, even if they force people in general to pay higher prices for goods than they would if imports could freely enter the country. Historically, in the United States and in the United Kingdom, trade restrictions were important in allowing certain manufacturing industries to get started, and these industries generated the development of many connected activities. The long-run results seem to have been favorable for economic growth and, ultimately, wide benefits. This argument of protecting “infant industries” could apply in many developing countries, but it is of dubious validity in one of the world’s most advanced economies.
In today’s United States, there could be issues of markets being flooded with products produced abroad with very, very low wage labor. Those conditions might justify restrictions on imports, even though there would be real costs. The extreme cases would be when products are produced by prisoners, slaves, or children. Then there are situations where workers do not have the right to organize to form independent unions. Similarly, when goods are produced abroad in environmentally destructive ways, restrictions on importing those goods could be reasonable.
But, again, the issue of domestic policy arises: How can we defend, through trade barriers, the rights of workers elsewhere when many workers in this country have their rights to organize greatly restricted? Or when child labor is on the rise here? How can we demand that other countries follow good environmental policies when our own are so insufficient?
Support for a progressive trade policy will, of course, be attacked by the traditional arguments for “free trade.” Yet, these arguments lose their force when it is recognized that there is really no such thing as “free trade,” if by that term we mean the absence of actions by government that affect international commerce. Yet, innumerable actions of government have impacts on a country’s international commerce. Education policies that affect the structure of the labor force, for example, play a role in determining the kinds of goods that are produced in the country and their position in global trade. Or consider agricultural policies that, in the history of the United States, have had the impact of making this country a major exporter of agricultural commodities. Tax policies and other government programs could also provide examples. So, the issue is not whether or not to adopt government policies affecting international trade. The issue is which policies!
C. J. Polychroniou: A recent story in the New York Times pointed out that hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. are currently unfulfilled. First, is this evidence that the industrial sector has bounced back, and second, how do we explain the alleged labor shortage in manufacturing jobs?Arthur MacEwan: It is best not to take business complaints about a labor shortage too seriously. What they generally mean is that with the wages, benefits, and working conditions that they offer, they can’t get enough workers.
Traditional orthodox economics has a simple answer to such complaints: offer higher wages! And, of course, better benefits and improved working conditions. The workers will come.
But, unsurprisingly, this has not been what employers have been doing. In May of 2025, the average hourly wage for production and non-supervisory workers in manufacturing was $28.79, while for all private-sector production and nonsupervisory workers the figure was 7.6% higher, at $30.97. This was a switch from 25 years ago: In May of 2000, the hourly wage for manufacturing workers was 2% higher than the hourly wage for all private-sector workers.
Moreover, in from 2000 to 2023, while the real (i.e., inflation adjusted) median household income rose by about 15%, the wage for production and nonsupervisory workers in manufacturing, adjusted by the consumer price index, rose by only 5%. (Real household income data are not yet available since 2023.)Employers in manufacturing have accomplished this relative decline in workers’ wages by several means—automation, union busting, and shifting (or the threat of shifting) production abroad. In short, they have done just about everything they could to keep wages down. And now they have the audacity to complain about a “labor shortage.”
C. J. Polychroniou: Are there lessons to be drawn for the left from Trump’s approach to international trade?
Arthur MacEwan: There are several lessons for the left. Some of these are implicit in my answers to previous questions—for example, the importance of protecting workers and their power instead of protecting jobs, and the essential complementarity between international and domestic economic policy.
Further, there are different ways that policy can protect the interests of business—that is, the power of capital. Trump’s program and the neoliberal policies that came before him have substantial differences, but both preserve and even worsen the great economic inequalities and uneven power arrangements that dominate our society. In fighting against the depredations of the Trump era, we need to look beyond what came before to determine how to create something new.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Authoritarian Horrors' of Trump Dealt Blow by Federal Appeals Court
The 9th Circuit upholds lower court ruling against ICE raids denounced as 'unconstitutional' by legal plaintiffs in California.
Aug 02, 2025
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit late Friday backed a lower court ruling which found immigration raids targeting people based on their apparent racial identity, language spoken, or vicinity of their capture are unlawful—a decision which dealt a further blow to President Donald Trump's authoritarian policies aimed at migrant workers and working-class communities in California and beyond.
In its ruling, the 3-judge panel of the federal court upheld a previous ruling by a U.S. District Court in early July which found the targeting of migrants during the raids was based not on suspicion of wrongdoing or criminal activity of any kind, but simply for speaking Spanish, appearing to be a certain ethnicity, or being near a location where certain workers tend to congregate, such as a bus stop, large hardware store, or agriculture site.
The ruling stems from a case brought against the Trump administration by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Public Counsel, workers, and others who argue the raids, which have touched off community anger and unease for months, are, in the words of Public Counsel's senior attorney Mark Rosenbaum, "unconstitutional, unsupported by evidence, and rooted in fear and harmful stereotypes, not public safety."
The 9th Circuit ruling means the lower court's ban on such raids in certain areas of southern California will remain in place while the case proceeds.
"Every person, regardless of immigration status, has the right to live, work, and belong in their community without being hunted, harassed, or locked away." —Lindsay Toczylowski, Immigrant Defenders Law Center
As the New York Times notes, the latest ruling leaves the Trump administration with two legal options. "It can ask all the active Ninth Circuit judges to reconsider the panel’s Friday night decision," the newspaper notes, "or it could ask the Supreme Court to issue a stay of [the lower court order issued on July 7.]"
In the meantime—though the legal battle is far from over—the plaintiffs in the case celebrated the ruling and vowed to continue their fight against Trump's far-right, anti-immigrant agenda.
"This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," said Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. "We look forward to holding the federal government accountable for these authoritarian horrors it unleashed in Southern California, and we invite every person of conscience to join us in defending the integrity and freedom of communities of color across the country."
Lindsay Toczylowski, president and CEO of Immigrant Defenders Law Center, another party to the suit, also heralded the ruling.
"This decision reaffirms that nobody is above the law—not even the federal government," said Toczylowski. "Southern California was never going to back down in the face of lawless attacks on our immigrant communities. Every person, regardless of immigration status, has the right to live, work, and belong in their community without being hunted, harassed, or locked away. While we celebrate this hard-fought victory, we remain relentless in protecting our clients in the courtroom and beyond."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Campaign's Interactive Tool Tracks How Much Trump and GOP Are Raising the Cost of Living
"Trump and Republicans in Congress are single-handedly inflating the cost of everyday items that Americans rely on," said one advocate.
Jul 31, 2025
Six months into U.S. President Donald Trump's second term, an economic justice group on Thursday unveiled an interactive tool to help Americans put a number on the unmistakable feeling many have reported having about the Republican leader who promised to "make America affordable again": that costs have in fact gone up under Trump, and that the White House and the GOP are to blame.
Using the tool introduced by Unrig Our Economy, people across the U.S. can see exactly how much the price of essentials has gone up in their state, with the advocacy group connecting the dots between the rising cost of living and Trump's tariffs as well as corporate tax breaks Republicans have relentlessly pushed to pass.
According to the "Don't Inflate Our Plates" tool, the price of beef in Texas has gone up nearly 47% since the early days of Trump's second term, while eggs cost $3.19 more than they did before Trump took office.
In California, eggs now cost over $5.00 more than they did before Trump's second term, based on "historical trends, real-time supplier data, and market analysis" that Unrig Our Economy examined.
Unrig Our Economy gained some of its data from Kroger's pricing data, finding that in states with Kroger stores, the price of beef has gone up between 16% and 72%, with the biggest price hikes in Alaska and Utah.
Egg prices in particular were a talking point for Trump during his presidential campaign, but they've risen in many states where Kroger operates, with customers in Michigan—where the president won in 2024—paying 58% more for eggs.
"Trump and Republicans in Congress are singlehandedly inflating the cost of everyday items that Americans rely on," said Leor Tal, campaign director for Unrig Our Economy. "While billionaires and corporations cash in on Republican-backed tax breaks, working-class families are left paying higher prices for eggs, coffee, and more."
Unrig Our Economy pointed to reporting on Trump's tariffs, more of which are set to be announced Friday, with the president expected to impose rates up to 50% on some imports.
As Common Dreams reported this week, the advocacy group Groundwork Collaborative found that just as corporate executives used labor shortages and supply chain disruptions during the coronavirus pandemic as cover to keep prices high even after those problems were resolved, many are now using tariffs as a justification for price increases.
"We certainly welcome a reduction in the Chinese tariffs, but we'll be announcing a price increase here regardless of any changes of the Chinese tariffs over the next week or two to go into effect in June," the CEO of one footwear brand said in a recent earnings call.
Unrig Our Economy pointed to recent polling that showed Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump's tariffs, including 47% of Republican voters.
The Trump administration has also made a number of regulatory moves benefiting corporations that aim to take as much money from working families' household budgets as possible, including a push for the cancellation of a Biden-era Federal Trade Commission rule allowing consumers to easily cancel subscriptions; the FTC's decision to drop a lawsuit challenging price discrimination by PepsiCo; and the commission's move shutting down public comments on corporate pricing tactics.
The interactive tool was unveiled weeks after the president signed into law his sweeping domestic policy and budget package, which includes the largest cuts to public programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in history, increases monthly payments for student loan borrowers under repayment assistance plans, and hands out $117 billion in tax cuts to the richest 1% of Americans while providing just $77 billion in cumulative savings to the bottom 60% of earners.
As Unrig Our Economy unveiled its tool allowing Americans to see exactly how their household budgets are being impacted under the Trump administration, the Century Foundation (TCF) and Morning Consult released the results of a poll in which they asked more than 2,000 people in June how they were being affected by the high cost of living over the past six months.
More than half of respondents said "billionaires, corporations, and congressional Republicans have made their lives harder," and 60% said the Trump administration is to blame for the higher cost of living.
More than 4 in 5 Americans said they were concerned about the price of groceries, and nearly half were concerned about their ability to pay their rent or mortgage. Forty-eight percent said they would have difficulty paying an unexpected $500 bill, like a home repair or medical bill, without borrowing or using credit, and nearly 20% said it would be "very difficult" to make the payment.
Even among households with incomes over $100,000, more than a third said they would have a hard time meeting the surprise expense without dipping into savings or using credit cards—suggesting that these households are using a large proportion of their relatively comfortable monthly income for essentials
"While the federal government tears down programs such as Medicaid and food assistance and federal regulators give the green light to companies to rip off consumers, families are being forced to construct their own safety nets from a web of risky financial practices," said TCF.
Unrig the Economy said that with Don't Inflate Our Plates, the group is calling out "the Republican-backed policies that got us here" and demanding "that Congress put working people first."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular