Is Mercantilism the answer to our trade imbalance?

Mercantilism is often associated with Donald Trump's economic policies. Can reaching back into the past truly make America great again? That is up for debate.

For those few of us familiar with the term, Mercantilism was the dominant economic system in Europe from the 16TH to the 18TH centuries.  It was a world where it was believed that global wealth was fixed and finite. To become powerful, a nation needed to acquire as much wealth as possible. Back then, a nation's wealth was measured by how much gold and silver it accumulated.

If this period evokes visions of tall ships, the Spanish Main, and epic exchanges of cannon fire between Spanish galleys and English Sea Hawks, you wouldn't be far wrong. All nations strove to maximize their wealth by exporting more goods than they imported by any means possible. Those that could plundered far-flung lesser more undeveloped nations and carried back sugar, timber, cotton, cocoa, gold, minerals, and more.

It was a period where many European countries raced and fought to establish colonies.  The extraction of raw materials fed a rapidly growing manufacturing system at home. The end products were then sold back to the colonies in exchange for precious metals and more commodities.

This resulted in a favorable trade balance under strict governmental control where sea-faring nations established protectionist policies such as tariffs, navigation acts, and quotas that limited imports while promoting domestic industries.  It was a beggar thy neighbor approach to economic development.  Exploiting others led to power at home, vast piles of gold and silver, continuous conflict among rival nations, and ultimately revolutions among colonies.    

Now that we have established the concept, fast forward to today. Is Trump truly a mercantilist in the traditional sense? Let's look at the tariff issue that occupies center stage and worries many economists. Trump argues that for decades various countries have taken advantage of America's goodwill in many areas from defense spending to trade balances. He has singled out China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Germany, and others as targets of his tariff initiatives.

There is no question that these countries have been running sizable bilateral current account surpluses with the U.S.  for decades. Many of his critics forget that Trump is certainly not the first president to have complained about this situation. In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and John F. Kennedy were just a few of our leaders who attempted but failed to balance the terms of trade between us and other nations.

Given this background, one could argue that enough is enough and Trump's approach is long overdue. The question is whether it works in a mercantilist world where our trading partners can levy tariffs in response. Critics argue that a tit-for-tat response will only send global trade downward and the U.S. economy along with it.

 That could happen but it is far more likely that our partners will settle for buying more of our imports and selling us less of their exports in exchange for a tariff break. It happened in round one of the Trump administration and could happen again. Next week, I look at how Trump’s brand of mercantilism is far different than what came before him.

Bill Schmick is a founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires.  Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners, Inc. (OPI).  None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice.  Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or e-mail him at billiams1948@gmail.com. Investments in securities are not insured, protected or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal.