Economists are taking sides. It starts at The Economist:
Despite a dispiriting start that saw the imposition of steel tariffs, the Bush administration has made great efforts on trade, pushing forward with both multilateral and bilateral deals. Its biggest goal, a substantive deal from the Doha round of World Trade Organisation negotiations, is currently on life support. But the administration has managed to secure a variety of smaller deals, while letting steel tariffs die a death at the hands of the WTO. Now even progress of that sort may end. [Trouble with trade. April 2 2007. The Economist]
The Street Light fires the first shot:
The Economist takes a massive dive today, as they continue to bizarrely and irresponsibly assume the best (or maybe “the least bad” would be more accurate) of the Bush administration. [The Economist on Bush on Trade. April 2 2007. The Street Light.]
The DeLong as reinforcement:
Kash Mansouri writes… [Kash Mansouri Is Very Unhappy with the Economist on Bush on Trade. April 3 2007. Grasping Reality with Both Hands]
Free Debate, the blog of the Economist, counterattacks:
BRAD DE LONG approvingly links Kash Mansouri, as he goes after us for claiming that the Bush administration has been relatively strong on free trade issues…
[…]
Despite the good professor’s endorsement, this take on the Bush administration’s trade policy is an implausibly uncharitable reading. I confess I am stonkered at the willingness to blame the Bush administration for being insufficiently active on Doha, since without the trade team’s efforts, Doha would not be on life support; it would be dead. The Bush administration did everything but a fan dance to lure all parties back to the table after the catastrophe at Cancun, and while it has not gone as far on farm subsidies as anyone would like, this is widely regarded as driven by (Democratic and Republican) farm interests in Congress, not some failure on the administration’s part. It does the administration no good to negotiate a treaty that can’t be signed.
[…]
The Bush administration is far from perfect on trade; I think particularly of its ridiculous stance on sugar ethanol. But the Bush administration is constrained by political realities. It has failed to take many damaging steps despite intense political pressure, such as declaring China a currency manipulator, and where it does impose anti-trade measures, they are pleasingly often something like the steel tariffs, which were guaranteed to be overruled by the WTO. And as Mr DeLong’s commenters point out, whatever Mr Bush’s trade sins, they are at this point thoroughly overshadowed by the Democratic protectionists currently flexing their muscles in the House. That’s less an endorsement of the Bush administration than a sad comment on the state of trade policy in the world today: the Bush administration is the best we’ve got. [Tu quoque. April 3 2007. Free Debate]
Would Mankiw and Krugman (or heh, by proxy, Mark Thoma) get a keg and make a merrier party?
