{"id":5686,"date":"2018-05-30T13:22:26","date_gmt":"2018-05-30T11:22:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.incipe.org\/?p=5686"},"modified":"2018-05-30T13:22:26","modified_gmt":"2018-05-30T11:22:26","slug":"la-nueva-guerra-comercial-que-viene-la-nueva-politica-comercial-de-estados-unidos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/2018\/05\/30\/la-nueva-guerra-comercial-que-viene-la-nueva-politica-comercial-de-estados-unidos\/","title":{"rendered":"La guerra comercial que viene: la nueva pol\u00edtica comercial de Estados Unidos"},"content":{"rendered":"

El pasado 30 de mayo, INCIPE organiz\u00f3 un Desayuno de Trabajo bajo el t\u00edtulo La guerra comercial que viene: La nueva pol\u00edtica comercial de Estados Unidos<\/em> a cargo de Pedro Schwartz, Catedr\u00e1tico \u201cRafael del Pino\u201d de Universidad Camilo Jos\u00e9 Cela y Acad\u00e9mico de n\u00famero de la Real Academia de Ciencias Morales y Pol\u00edticas. <\/strong><\/p>\n

La l\u00f3gica de la econom\u00eda es muy diferente a la de la Defensa y la Seguridad, ya que la econom\u00eda se basa en la cooperaci\u00f3n -entre empresas, personas y pa\u00edses-<\/strong>, por eso, responder a los aranceles con otro tipo de represalias econ\u00f3micas es un error, ya que perjudican tambi\u00e9n al pa\u00eds que las aplica. Y es que, el d\u00e9ficit en la balanza comercial no es un problema per se, sino el s\u00edntoma de un d\u00e9ficit de ahorro y de exceso de gasto dom\u00e9stico. Por eso, para evitar el d\u00e9ficit la soluci\u00f3n pasa por equilibrar el presupuesto p\u00fablico y no por reducir el peso del sector exterior en la econom\u00eda. Adem\u00e1s, Estados Unidos puede permitirse mantener un importante d\u00e9ficit comercial<\/strong>, ya que ejerce de banquero mundial y el resto de miembros de la comunidad internacional est\u00e1n dispuestos a financiar su deuda. As\u00ed, por ejemplo, China mantiene 1,2 billones de bonos p\u00fablicos estadounidenses. <\/p>\n

Por otro lado, el d\u00e9ficit comercial no se traduce en una p\u00e9rdida de empleos estadounidense. Y es que en el gigante americano el desempleo se mantiene en niveles muy bajos \u2013en torno al 3%-. Por eso, para legitimar su pol\u00edtica proteccionista, la administraci\u00f3n Trump trata de relacionar y justificar los aranceles haciendo referencia a un t\u00e9rmino difuso con gran aceptaci\u00f3n en el p\u00fablico del otro lado del Atl\u00e1ntico: Seguridad Nacional. Adem\u00e1s, el comercio internacional no se articula como un p\u00f3ker o de suma cero en el que uno gana y otros salen perjudicados, sino que es una relaci\u00f3n beneficiosa para todas las partes<\/strong>. As\u00ed, la l\u00f3gica del libre comercio indica que los pa\u00edses peque\u00f1os pueden vender sus productos a los grandes, los consumidores se ven beneficiados por la gran variedad de la oferta, la competencia fomenta la competitividad y la reducci\u00f3n de los m\u00e1rgenes intermedios redundan en la prosperidad.<\/p>\n

Sin embargo, los m\u00e1s beneficiados de las pol\u00edticas proteccionistas son las empresas menos competitivas<\/strong>, que presionan al gobierno para que este adopte las medidas que m\u00e1s les favorecen, cre\u00e1ndose una asimetr\u00eda entre los productores y los consumidores que, en \u00faltima instancia, provoca perjuicios al eslab\u00f3n m\u00e1s d\u00e9bil: los compradores con menor renta.
\nAs\u00ed, si los socios comerciales de Estados Unidos \u2013sobre todo la Uni\u00f3n Europea- iniciasen un camino de represalias, el riesgo de una implosi\u00f3n del comercio internacional similar a la provocada por el crack del 29, es una posibilidad muy real. Por eso, la respuesta m\u00e1s inteligente pasar\u00eda por la liberalizaci\u00f3n completa del comercio exterior de la UE. Y es que los costes y las barreras arancelarias se reducir\u00edan y el beneficio de estas medidas recaer\u00eda sobre los consumidores.<\/p>\n

Pablo Blanco
\nINCIPE<\/p>\n

\"6780--002\"<\/a> \"6780--017\"<\/a> \"6780--014\"<\/a>
\nOn May the 30th, INCIPE organized a working breakfast titled The Coming Trade War: The New Trade Policy of the United States<\/em>, presented by Pedro Schwartz, Rafael del Pino professor at the Camilo Jos\u00e9 Cela University and academician at the Royal Academy of Moral and Political Sciences.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The current balance of payments of the United States is not a problem per se, but rather a symptom of little of savings. Savings in the US are too low and the domestic consumption too high, which results in the purchase of foreign goods and services to meet this excessive demand. In order to solve the US trade deficit, it is necessary to reduce the government and private individuals\u2019 budget deficit. Nonetheless, the current American administration seeks to reduce the trade deficit through tariff increases and other protectionist measures that are justified through the elusive argument of national security and the fuzzy concept of \u2018fair and just trade\u2019. American trading partners-either allies or rivals- such as the EU or China are ready to retaliate against such measures.<\/p>\n

However, in the face of American protectionist measures, the European Union and other trading partners of the US should not retaliate with similar actions. The logic of economics is different from that of defense or security. Economics and trade are about cooperation and mutual benefit, not about relations of power and conflict between countries<\/strong>. It is all about the welfare of the people. In trade there should be no tit-for-tat.<\/p>\n

International trade has increased the living standards of people all around the world, lifted large numbers of people from poverty, and allowed the development of many countries. The consumption of imported goods benefits the economy as a whole. Countries that are less developed and productive can trade with richer and more productive countries to grow. International trade provides consumers with a much larger variety of commodities to consume at lower prices, and it reinforces a country\u2019s more efficient and innovative companies and destroys the least productive ones. Imports of cheaper raw materials and components reduces the costs of production, which, along with more efficient companies, lowers prices throughout the economy and promotes economic growth. Consumers always gain from international trade. However, the voices heard in parliaments calling for higher tariffs are those from domestic inefficient large producers. Unlike consumers, big producers have the resources and influence to lobby political leaders in favor of protectionist measure to guard their businesses from foreign competition.<\/p>\n

Retaliatory tariffs hurt both the retaliated and the retaliating country, and they are likely to escalate into full-blown a trade war. By erecting barriers to trade we are giving up the benefits that were previously descried, and we risk a collapse of international trade such as the one in 1930 that so much aggravated the Great Depression. Additionally, from another perspective, the political effectiveness of economic sanctions and retaliatory tariffs in changing the behavior of a country is questionable. Especially in the case of the US under such a temperamental and unpredictable president that conceives international trade as a zero-sum game. <\/p>\n

The best way for the EU to respond to President Trump\u2019s administration\u2019s protectionist measures is to completely liberalize its trade<\/strong>. Opening itself completely to international trade would lower prices and production costs. It would also make the EU more productive and competitive as to overcome the restrictions to imports imposed by the US. Moreover, reducing trade barriers might even appease President Trump, who would then spare the EU of American tariffs. However, this pro-free trade approach raises doubts from a social perspective (due to the adjustment cost that trade liberalization entails) and in the realm of geopolitics – where security, great power rivalry, and international balance of power are very significant.<\/p>\n

Luis Enrique Moya C\u00e1novas
\nINCIPE<\/p>\n

\"6780--002\"<\/a> \"6780--017\"<\/a> \"6780--014\"<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

El pasado 30 de mayo, INCIPE organiz\u00f3 un Desayuno de Trabajo bajo el t\u00edtulo La guerra comercial que viene: La nueva pol\u00edtica comercial de Estados Unidos a cargo de Pedro […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5685,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5686","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-desayunos-de-trabajo"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5686","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5686"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5686\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5686"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5686"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fundacionincipe.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5686"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}