The third Republican debate, held last night in Boulder, Colorado, was meant to cover the economy. That should have been natural terrain for the moderators, some of whom regularly cover business issues on CNBC’s Squawk Box. Yet, the candidates and top Republican officials ended up attacking the moderators over their approach.
Did they have a case?
Before the debate, I was asked by staff for one candidate to try to anticipate what questions might be raised about international economic matters. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think such questions would come up. President Obama is fond of reminding that 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States. If you look at today’s GDP numbers, imports and exports combined account for about 30 percent of US GDP. So the international economy matters.
In my reply, I warned that ‘international economic issues have generally gotten short shrift in debates, but maybe CNBC will be different.’ I offered five questions (plus variations) that might reasonably be expected to come up, in decreasing order of likelihood:
1. Is the newly-completed TPP agreement good for the country? (Variation: was NAFTA good for the country?)
2. Has the US economic relationship with China been good for the country? (Variation: how would you change it? Variation: is China a currency manipulator?)
3. What would you do about American companies moving overseas for tax purposes?
4. Should the US export crude oil? (Variation: What does America’s new energy independence mean?)
5. How would you fix the trade deficit?
Note, these are hardly the only or even the best international economic questions that could have been asked. But they did seem to capture topics that have been prominent in public arguments or covered heavily on CNBC. So how many came up in the actual debate?
None. The closest we got to international trade or finance was a question about the Export-Import Bank. Donald Trump raised corporate tax inversions (#3) and the trade balance (#5) briefly on his own.
In response to ensuing criticisms, CNBC’s vice president of communications Brian Steel said, “People who want to be president of the United States should be able to answer tough questions.”
He’s right. But it would help if the moderators asked those tough questions.
Phil Levy is senior fellow on the global economy at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Previously he was associate professor of business administration at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. He was formerly a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and taught at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. From 2003 to 2006, he served first as senior economist for trade for President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers and then as a member of Secretary of State Rice’s Policy Planning Staff, covering international economic matters. Before working in government, he was a faculty member of Yale University’s Department of Economics for nine years and spent one of those as academic director of Yale’s Center for the Study of Globalization.
His academic writings have appeared in such outlets as The American Economic Review, Economic Journal, and theJournal of International Economics. He is a regular contributor to Foreign Policy magazine’s online Shadow Government section and writes on topics including trade policy, economic relations with China, and the European economic crisis. Dr. Levy has testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Joint Economic Committee, the House Committee on Ways and Mean, and the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. He received his PhD in Economics from Stanford University in 1994 and his AB in Economics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1988.
Despite hopes for a comprehensive trade pact post-Brexit, a deal between the United Kingdom and the United States is far from a certainty.
Multilateralism may face skepticism in the United States, but it remains a core value for a vital American ally
A meeting in Canada could generate creative solutions for the future of the WTO, if only for the size of the economies participating
Will the new NAFTA deal pass through Congress? The answer may depend on how it treats labor rights.
The anti-trade rhetoric of the 2016 presidential campaign resonated deeply in the Midwest, especially for individuals most directly affected by deindustrialization and the resulting job losses: those without postsecondary training and skills.
Inking the Asia Pacific trade deal is only step one, as obstacles remain to implementation.
Nearly four months into the NAFTA renegotiation, Mexico and Canada have potentially developed an effective response to the Trump administration's trade skepticism.
Nothing productive arises from criticizing Germany for its bilateral trade surplus, much less its auto exports.
It will be difficult to expedite the renegotiation of the 23-year old agreement in 2017, if not 2018
Targeting a realistic GDP growth rate requires more than a bidding war.
President Trump flipped his stance on labeling China a currency manipulator. But what qualifies as currency manipulation in the first place?
The bill for forgoing TPP is coming due. Perhaps its price will make the administration reconsider.
The clarion call of the disaffected, low-skilled worker became the soundtrack of the 2016 election. Indeed, President Trump claimed the presidency in no small part by promising to reverse the effects of globalization, railing incessantly against the US’s “horrible” trade deals. It does beg the question, though: Why didn’t anyone consider helping those alienated before? In fact, they did.
Mr. President! So glad you called. No, it’s not too early; I was up anyway. You wanted to know whether a strong dollar or a weak dollar is good for the economy. Excellent question.
What is a border tax adjustment, why is this national tax policy relevant to the global economy, and what headwinds does the proposed policy face from World Trade Organization and the US executive branch?