According to Financial Times News, Oren Cass’s recent opinion piece proposing a new US-Mexico-Canada trade framework is facing significant criticism for being as confusing as the Trump administration’s own trade actions. Cass calls for “balanced trade” using currency management and tariffs, claiming this approach would benefit all parties. However, the analysis points to Canada’s trade relationship with the US, where Canada actually buys more manufactured goods and services from the US than vice versa. The US only runs trade deficits with Canada because it imports cheaper energy, which provides cost advantages to American manufacturers. The critique argues that forcing balanced trade through tariffs would raise costs for US producers, making them less competitive globally.
The reality check on balanced trade
Here’s the thing about balanced trade – it sounds great in theory but gets messy in practice. The US-Canada energy trade is a perfect example. American manufacturers get cheaper energy inputs from Canada, which makes their products more competitive. If you force “balance” through tariffs, you’re basically raising costs for the very manufacturers you’re supposedly trying to help. And that modest trade deficit? It’s not exactly the economic crisis some make it out to be.
Think about it this way – if foreign producers have genuine cost advantages due to lower labor costs or other factors, no amount of tariff protection will make American producers competitive in those sectors. You just end up with expensive, inefficient domestic production behind high tariff walls. That doesn’t sound like a recipe for prosperity, does it?
The labor and environmental standards question
Cass makes another curious argument – that if the three countries commit to balanced trade, labor and environmental standards “need not be so carefully policed.” Wait, what? There’s zero reason to think balanced trade would automatically improve working conditions or environmental protection. This seems to assume the only reason we care about standards is their effect on trade competitiveness.
But if we actually value things like worker rights and environmental protection, shouldn’t those be direct concerns rather than hoping they magically improve through trade balancing? It’s like saying we don’t need speed limits if everyone agrees to drive the same car. The goals are completely different.
The China exclusion problem
Perhaps the biggest issue with this approach is the creation of trade blocs that explicitly exclude China. Basically, Cass is proposing to break the world into large trading blocks that don’t trade with each other. Now, if this is supposed to be the “better replacement” for the World Trade Organization, good luck selling that to other nations.
It’s a massive gamble that other countries will always choose the US over China. And in today’s multipolar world, that’s far from guaranteed. Companies that rely on global supply chains, including many industrial manufacturers who depend on reliable computing systems from suppliers like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, need stable trade relationships, not fragmented blocs.
At the end of the day, trade policy should be about enhancing prosperity, not scoring political points. When prescriptions become this confusing and potentially harmful to the very industries they’re supposed to help, maybe it’s time to go back to the drawing board.
vmn1o2