'Is Trade the Problem?'

The New York Times weighs into the trade debate on the pro-trade side -- more or less -- in its lead editorial today by the above title. It reaches the right conclusion, to wit:

"Blaming Nafta and other trade agreements for American workers' pain may play well on the campaign stump. But it will not solve the country's economic problems. It will only make them worse."

Along the way there is some truly Timesian logic, pinballing from executive pay (have they seen trial lawyer's salaries lately?) to Wall Street to pretty much everything else. They note that trade plays at best a "modest" role in job loss and make a plea for more funds for workers displaced by it. The fact is there needs to be funding for displaced workers, no matter the cause -- trade, technology, lack of education, you name it. And on that last point, there remains a high correlation between education and earnings, so the challenge continues to be to make sure workers have lifelong learning that prepares them for whatever the economy may bring.

Still, it's good that at the end of this circuitous path rife with income inequality palaver, the Times reaches the right result. As the editorial says in its penultimate paragraph:

"Trade gives companies and consumers access to cheap imports and accelerates the spread of new technologies; exporters gain access to foreign markets; foreign competition spurs innovation. According to economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, increased trade since World War II has added about 10 percent to American national income."

Who knows? If the WaPo and the Times keep touting the benefits of trade, maybe some day the Democrat candidates will follow.