Let the trade wars begin.
In an effort to resuscitate American industry, Donald Trump launched the first salvo Thursday in what may become a global trade war by imposing a 25% tariff on imported steel alongside a 10% tariff on imported aluminum. How the world will react, and if Trump has a counter-counterattack, remains unclear at this time.
It is not the first time America has sought to level off its unbalanced trade, particularly with China and other countries that flood—some would say, dump—cheaper alternatives to domestic U.S. production. In a global economy, manufacturers seek out the least expensive raw materials, labor and finished products. Too often, that means consumers at home and abroad think American made goods are overpriced.
Heck, relocating supply lines has long been practiced by American industry. Textile companies fled the North to establish plants down South where non unionized workers earned less than their northern counterparts. But even lower southern wages could not compete with foreign laborers in Latin America and Asia. Executives fluent in global sourcing minutia shifted manufacturing from country to country to stay below import quotas established by the American government.
Trump champions America First, so it is not surprising he would favor steel and aluminum tariffs, particularly since underutilized plants are mostly located in Rust Belt states Trump won in 2016 and needs to win in 2020—Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin. It seemingly does not bother Trump that prices of many goods that include steel and aluminum components will rise and could cost more jobs in related industries than would be created by the metal makers.
Trump, who spoke out against Chinese dumping practices years before his presidential run, was not the first business titan to see the danger of a depleted American manufacturing base. Back in 1985, Sam Walton positioned Walmart as an advocate of “Buy America.”
I went to the source—my bound copies of Chain Store Age—to review how the retail industry and I reacted to import quotas and to Mr. Sam’s defensive ploy to combat a growing criticism of his company, at $6.5 billion, the seventh largest general merchandise chain, a little less than a third the size of $21.7 billion Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart’s $21.1 billion. (Today, Walmart is the largest retailer in the world with sales of $485.9 billion in the recently concluded fiscal year. Sears and its now-sister company Kmart have a combined volume of less than $17 billion).
Not surprisingly, retailers, who normally supported Reagan administration policies, railed against quotas. Under the headline, “Protectionism: Policies leave chains vulnerable,” CSA reported in September 1984 that tighter import quotas fueled dramatic price increases in many merchandise categories. Kmart, for example, estimated the cost of goods from China increased 25%.
Fast forward to Trump’s imposition of tariffs and the reaction is no less muted. Thursday, National Retail Federation president and CEO Matthew Shay said, “A tariff is a tax, plain and simple. In this case, it’s an unnecessary tax on every American family and a self-inflicted wound on the nation’s economy. Consumers are just beginning to see more money in their paychecks following tax reform, but those gains will soon be offset by higher prices for products ranging from canned goods to cars to electronics.
“The retail industry is extremely concerned by the administration’s apparent desire to ignite a trade war, where the net losers will be the very people the president wants to help. On top of steel and aluminum tariffs, retailers are troubled by the direction of the ongoing NAFTA negotiations and the threat of additional tariffs on consumer goods from China. The true greatness of America cannot be realized when we build walls blocking the free flow of commerce in today’s global economy.”
Importing helped catapult the Bentonville, Ark.-based company into a global powerhouse. To be sure, few if any of Walmart’s competitors disdained importing. But Walmart’s heralded logistical and technological efficiencies accelerated its growth.
When Sam Walton started speaking publicly about imported goods in August 1984, his company was a burgeoning juggernaut but still not near the size of Sears and Kmart. He framed the challenge as dual pronged—reduce the trade deficit by buying American made products, but if that is not possible, develop products and jobs in Mexico, Central America and South America to “improve the standard of living for the average citizen in Central and South America.”
Within a year Walton launched a “Buy America” program. Skeptics abounded. The program persisted, but in December 1992, five months after Walton died, NBC Dateline confronted company CEO David Glass with allegations products marketed as Made in America really were imported from Bangladesh. The adverse publicity led to the program’s demise.
Several years ago, Walmart started a Made in America program. It proudly touts a claim that “two-thirds of what Walmart spends on products sold in U.S. stores is made, sourced, assembled or grown within the USA.” That is “according to our suppliers,” Walmart acknowledges.
That provides a wide definition of American made. (Sales last year in domestic Walmart stores and Sam’s Clubs totaled $365.2 billion.) It cannot be argued that Walmart’s expansion and buying practices did not gut many a small town of local retailing and small malls, as well as contribute to the closing of many domestic manufacturing plants supplanted by foreign suppliers.
But it is equally indisputable that shopping at Walmart has stretched consumer dollars and helped keep inflation in check.
It’s too soon to say what lasting impact Trump’s tariffs will have on sales, on inflation, on employment. But it’s safe to say they will not markedly change our balance of trade with the rest of the world.