article: That was the question posed in a recent Wall Street Journal column. Meanwhile, an article in Forbes magazine describes another non-mainstream figure still in the running for the White House, the Democrat Bernie Sanders, as not having the "first inkling of what [trade] is and why we do it". Let's put aside the question of how likely it is that either will become the 45th president. The fact that both have raised the issue of trade in rather striking terms is still a sign of something wider going on in US politics. Both have expressed profound concerns about the impact of international trade on the US economy and workers. As the quotes above show, both have caused alarm or scorn among enthusiasts for trade liberalisation. Both would represent a marked departure from decades of US trade policy which has, with some diversions on the way, followed this path. For Mr Trump, much of the focus is specifically on China: "Since China joined the WTO [World Trade Organization in 2001] Americans have witnessed the closure of more than 50,000 factories and the loss of tens of millions of jobs. It was not a good deal for America then and it's a bad deal now." He told the New York Times that he would favour a 45% tariff on imports from China, although he has subsequently said the proposal is a threat to get China to "behave". He wants to put "an end to China's illegal export subsidies and lax labour and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers". Mr Sanders is not so far away. A release on his campaign website after a speech in Pennsylvania says: "The North American Free Trade Agreement [Nafta, which involves the US, Canada and Mexico] cost 850,000 good-paying jobs in the United States, including 26,300 in Pennsylvania. Normalized trade relations with China [following China's accession to the WTO] led to the loss of 3.2 million jobs including 122,600 in Pennsylvania." Both are also exercised about the trade deficit - the fact that America buys more foreign goods than it sells abroad. They see that as a result of unfair trade agreements and as evidence that the US is losing out - "they are killing us on trade" is a phrase that Mr Trump has often used. That idea is in stark contrast with the view of mainstream economics that trade liberalisation is beneficial for all countries that do it. By removing barriers that raise the cost of imported goods, countries can specialise in producing what they do best, and consumers and businesses can buy goods more cheaply. That idea, and a desire to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression (which was aggravated though not caused by trade restrictions), is behind the gradual removal of trade barriers since World War Two. There has been a more or less global effort to do this under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) and, from 1995, the WTO. There have also been many smaller scale moves between groups of countries, including what
summary: Would Donald Trump "wreak havoc on world trade" if he became US president?