A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

James Surowiecki titles his piece on free trade "The Free Trade Paradox." I don't quite know what is paradoxical about it, since his piece makes clear that supporting free trade is a no-brainer and that as a consequence, we ought to be deeply concerned about the trade stances of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:

All the acrimony in the primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has disguised the fact that on most issues they're not too far apart. That's especially the case when it comes to free trade, which both Obama and Clinton have lambasted over the past few months. At times, the campaign has looked like a contest over who hates free trade more: Obama has argued that free-trade agreements like NAFTA are bought and paid for by special interests, while Clinton has emphasized the need to "stand up" to countries like China. Two weeks ago, both senators signed on as sponsors of a new bill that would effectively impose higher tariffs on China if it doesn't revalue its currency. The candidates are trying to win the favor of unions and blue-collar voters in states like Ohio and West Virginia, of course, but their positions also reflect a widespread belief that free trade with developing countries, and with China in particular, is a kind of scam perpetrated by the wealthy, who reap the benefits while ordinary Americans bear the cost.

It's an understandable view: how, after all, can it be a good thing for American workers to have to compete with people who get paid seventy cents an hour? As it happens, the negative effect of trade on American wages isn't that easy to document. The economist Paul Krugman, for instance, believes that the effect is significant, though in a recent academic paper he concluded that it was impossible to quantify. But it's safe to say that the main burden of trade-related job losses and wage declines has fallen on middle- and lower-income Americans. So standing up to China seems like a logical way to help ordinary Americans do better. But there's a problem with this approach: the very people who suffer most from free trade are often, paradoxically, among its biggest beneficiaries.

The reason for this is simple: free trade with poorer countries has a huge positive impact on the buying power of middle- and lower-income consumers--a much bigger impact than it does on the buying power of wealthier consumers. The less you make, the bigger the percentage of your spending that goes to manufactured goods--clothes, shoes, and the like--whose prices are often directly affected by free trade. The wealthier you are, the more you tend to spend on services--education, leisure, and so on--that are less subject to competition from abroad. In a recent paper on the effect of trade with China, the University of Chicago economists Christian Broda and John Romalis estimate that poor Americans devote around forty per cent more of their spending to "non-durable goods" than rich Americans do. That means that lower-income Americans get a much bigger benefit from the lower prices that trade with China has brought.

Read it all. That the "reality-based community" should find itself on the wrong side when it comes to this issue should come as no surprise whatsoever. But it'll be a nasty shock to policymaking if the campaign rhetoric of the remaining Democratic Presidential candidates--and much of the Democratic party--actually gets codified as our national approach to trade issues.