On China, National Interest Must Trump Perceived Economic Interest

Unshackle our economy, and decouple from China

I was delighted to be asked to respond to Sam Gregg’s essay in the Public Discourse on the ongoing debate between free marketeers and economic nationalists.

My rejoinder dealt with the aspects of his piece pertaining to China—namely, his opposition to an economic nationalist policy in grappling with it.

I disagree, arguing that when the national interest and perceived economic interest conflict, the patriotic must trump the pecuniary.

Communist China’s hegemonic ambitions, and the relentless means by which it is pursuing them through “commerce” and beyond, dictate that we may well have to respond in ways that are economically inefficient if we are to prevail in the long-term struggle at hand.

As I write:

[G]iven the stakes—we must at least strongly consider policies aimed at reshoring jobs, rebuilding domestic production capacity in critical industries, developing a national industrial policy, and using all the sticks at our disposal—including tariffs—for leverage in combating China. Going forward, we must prudently balance economic efficiency, cultural cohesion, and vitality in trade.

One can acknowledge the waste, fraud, and corruption inherent to projects involving state planning, that a tariff is a tax, and that protectionist policies divert resources from better uses while also acknowledging that grave threats sometimes compel uneconomic responses.

In the spirit of compromise, I would propose the following: Unshackle our economy, and decouple from China.

Read the whole thing here.