Protectionist Madness: 32 Bad Trade Policies Entered; Only 8Remain
pa href=https://www.cato.org/people/scott-lincicome hreflang=undScott Lincicome/a
/p
pCato’s a href=https://www.cato.org/2023-protectionist-madnessstrongemProtectionist Madness 2023/em/strong/a started a href=https://www.cato.org/blog/introducing-catos-protectionist-madness-2023-tournamenttwo weeks ago/a with 32 terrible U.S. trade policies going head‐to‐head in a single‐elimination tournament that’ll let the public decide the worst of the bunch. After four rounds of voting, an “overtime” thriller, and more than em21,000/em votes cast, just eight policies now remain (seeding in parentheses)./p
ulliSection 232 (Metals Tariffs) (1)/li
liTrans‐Pacific Partnership Withdrawal (2)/li
liThe Jones Act (1)/li
liSugar Quotas (2)/li
liAntidumping and Countervailing Duty Law (1)/li
liThe Foreign Dredge Act (2)/li
liBuy American (1)/li
liSection 301 (2)/li
/ulpAs the seeds above indicate, the Tournament Section Committee (aka Cato trade policy scholars) did a good job predicting what U.S. trade policies would attract the most public ire, though 4th‐seeded Textile/Apparel tariffs pushed the Foreign Dredge Act into overtime after an incredibly‐unlikely Round 4 tie. Several other surprises happened along the way: electric vehicle localization requirements rolled over the WTO Appellate Body blockade; solar panel duties shocked shoe tariffs; and softwood lumber duties felled the Passenger Vehicle Services Act. In the end, however, the giants of American protectionism won out (while the rest of the country loses). Now they’ll face off today/tomorrow (Egregious 8) and Wednesday/Thursday (Foul 4) for a trip to next week’s Championship:/p
p
div data-embed-button=image data-entity-embed-display=view_mode:media.blog_post data-entity-embed-display-settings={quot;link_urlquot;:quot;https:\/\/www.cato.org\/2023-protectionist-madnessquot;,quot;link_url_targetquot;:0} data-entity-type=media data-entity-uuid=06d54959-852e-473a-b40a-6c1347081269 data-langcode=en class=embedded-entitya href=https://www.cato.org/2023-protectionist-madness
img loading=lazy src=/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2023-03/MicrosoftTeams-image%20%283%29.png?itok=LXtd-NTF width=1400 height=782 alt=Cato Protectionist Madness Egregious 8 class=image-style-pubs-2x component-image //a/div
/ppI personally have the 232s winning it all, as they’re a perfect storm of bad trade policy: bad economics, bad law, bad foreign policy, and bad politics. But several of my Cato colleagues and thousands of other voters disagree./p
pWhat do you think? Be sure to vote a href=https://www.cato.org/2023-protectionist-madnesshere/a./p