<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The rapid production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines showed this very thing\u2014that access to global markets strengthens U.S. resilience rather than weakening it. Today, even the Trump administration has looked to imports to help mitigate egg shortages and lower prices, just as the economics literature would suggest.<\/p>\n

Economists are also not wrong about tariffs. The only silver lining of the trade war is the hundreds of new textbook examples where theory fits reality to a T. Protectionism imposes long-term costs on businesses and consumers for the benefit of a select few industries. Studies have now shown that the U.S.-China trade war and other U.S. tariffs raised manufacturing costs, reduced exports, cost households hundreds of dollars per year, and did little to bring back manufacturing jobs or reduce trade deficits. The billions in tariffs collected from U.S. consumers was used to bail out politically powerful farmers hurt by foreign retaliation. Aside from a handful of protected workers and companies, everyone else was worse off.<\/p>\n

Economists also agree that, when it comes to policy, durability is critical and uncertainty hurts. When choosing policies to boost job growth and U.S. global competitiveness, one lesson from the backlash against globalization is that truly effective measures must be resilient across political cycles.<\/p>\n

For instance, continuing to improve roads, bridges, ports of entry, and railway corridors offers value precisely because these investments are permanent. They reduce costs for businesses and people in every economic environment\u2014regardless of trade policy, recessions, or shifts in political leadership. By contrast, economic policies implemented (and thus easily canceled) by executive fiat deliver less bang for their buck and keep private investors on the sidelines\u2014a lesson we may again be learning as presidential tariff announcements fly and trade policy uncertainty skyrockets.<\/p>\n

None of this means, however, that economists have no more work to do. We should offer a more comprehensive view of how trade impacts communities, how labor markets adapt, and which policies are most effective in disruptions\u2014whether caused by trade or other shocks. This doesn\u2019t contradict the broader consensus that trade delivers net gains, and we should do more to explain them.<\/p>\n

But it also suggests we need to spotlight both benefits and costs to show how policy can help more people share in the gains. In an ideal policy world, \u201cwinners and losers\u201d would become, at worst, \u201cwinners and less-disadvantaged.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a tall order, but international economics will keep improving and should not be abandoned for narratives unsupported by theory and reality.\u00a0Instead, we need to tell the stories and narratives consistent with the broader evidence\u2014evidence that still strongly supports globalization.<\/p>\n