As food prices rise, food import tariffs are falling.

I’m glad that Michael Bloomberg wants America to resist protectionism, but by writing in the FT, isn’t he preaching to the choir, and a largely non-American choir at that?

Daniel Altman thinks it’s notable that Fiat and Volkswagen are thinking about building automobile plants in the United States. But that’s far from remarkable. Toyota has been building plants in the American South for years.

So if this story is newsworthy, it must be so because there is something distinct about European investment in the States or because it highlights the magnitude of the dollar’s fall. It’s not news that America has run a trade deficit for years, which is the same as saying its enjoyed significant net capital inflows for years, including investments in automobile plants.

Daniel Altman thinks it’s notable that Fiat and Volkswagen are thinking about building automobile plants in the United States. But that’s far from remarkable. Toyota has been building plants in the American South for years.

So if this story is newsworthy, it must be so because there is something distinct about European investment in the States or because it highlights the magnitude of the dollar’s fall. It’s not news that America has run a trade deficit for years, which is the same as saying its enjoyed significant net capital inflows for years, including investments in automobile plants.

Daniel Altman thinks it’s notable that Fiat and Volkswagen are thinking about building automobile plants in the United States. But that’s far from remarkable. Toyota has been building plants in the American South for years.

So if this story is newsworthy, it must be so because there is something distinct about European investment in the States or because it highlights the magnitude of the dollar’s fall. It’s not news that America has run a trade deficit for years, which is the same as saying its enjoyed significant net capital inflows for years, including investments in automobile plants.

Simon Kuper, the FT‘s sport columnist, guts the case for protectionism in football:

British panic over immigrants has spread to football. English clubs prefer foreign players because they are better. Arsenal has almost dispensed with Englishmen altogether. English footballers accounted for only 37 per cent of total minutes played in this season’s Premiership, according to Dutch magazine Voetbal International. To some degree, English soccer is disappearing… Or one could say they get a massive 37 per cent, more than any other nationality in what is arguably the world’s toughest league.

Rather than playing too little top-class club soccer, Englishmen probably play too much. The Premier League is becoming a global league, seen on television everywhere, soccer’s equivalent of the US’s National Basketball Association. So players earn millions. So the league is all-consuming. Players have to give everything, every match.

A Croatian playing in a smaller league can husband his energy so as to peak in international matches. But English players must peak for their clubs. That means they often start international matches tired and unfocused…

In any case, English supporters want foreign players. Mr Platini wonders whether Liverpudlians can identify with a Liverpool team packed with foreigners. Judging by the Premiership’s record crowds paying record ticket prices, fans identify enough. England can have either an excellent league or an English league, but not both. Fans apparently prefer excellence.

Jacob Funk Kirkegaard says that America is in desperate need of more high-skilled immigrants.

Kim Elliott says that Hillary Clinton is alienating poor countries:

But in questioning the worth of reviving the Doha Round, as she did in an interview with the Financial Times, Clinton overreacts and comes across as isolationist and completely oblivious to the consequences for the poorer countries in the world. It is correct, as Clinton implies, that the economic benefits of Doha overall would be modest. The US market is already relatively open so the effects here would be small. But they could be important for some low-income countries that pay the highest tariffs remaining in the US schedule. Those tariffs, on less expensive clothing, footwear, and other products, are also regressive in their effects on US consumers, hitting the poorest at home the hardest. Perhaps most important, failure of the Doha Round could undermine support for the multilateral, rules-based system that is the only thing protecting smaller, poorer countries from predatory trade practices by the powerful.

Dan Drezner points out that Clinton isn’t making Peter Mandelson happy either.

Kim Elliott says that Hillary Clinton is alienating poor countries:

But in questioning the worth of reviving the Doha Round, as she did in an interview with the Financial Times, Clinton overreacts and comes across as isolationist and completely oblivious to the consequences for the poorer countries in the world. It is correct, as Clinton implies, that the economic benefits of Doha overall would be modest. The US market is already relatively open so the effects here would be small. But they could be important for some low-income countries that pay the highest tariffs remaining in the US schedule. Those tariffs, on less expensive clothing, footwear, and other products, are also regressive in their effects on US consumers, hitting the poorest at home the hardest. Perhaps most important, failure of the Doha Round could undermine support for the multilateral, rules-based system that is the only thing protecting smaller, poorer countries from predatory trade practices by the powerful.

Dan Drezner points out that Clinton isn’t making Peter Mandelson happy either.

Kim Elliott says that Hillary Clinton is alienating poor countries:

But in questioning the worth of reviving the Doha Round, as she did in an interview with the Financial Times, Clinton overreacts and comes across as isolationist and completely oblivious to the consequences for the poorer countries in the world. It is correct, as Clinton implies, that the economic benefits of Doha overall would be modest. The US market is already relatively open so the effects here would be small. But they could be important for some low-income countries that pay the highest tariffs remaining in the US schedule. Those tariffs, on less expensive clothing, footwear, and other products, are also regressive in their effects on US consumers, hitting the poorest at home the hardest. Perhaps most important, failure of the Doha Round could undermine support for the multilateral, rules-based system that is the only thing protecting smaller, poorer countries from predatory trade practices by the powerful.

Dan Drezner points out that Clinton isn’t making Peter Mandelson happy either.