The hideous spectre of dread export-promotion

Blake Hounshell at FP Passport rumbles darkly about Obama's "mercantilist" SOTU address:

Then there was his disappointing discussion of trade, which included a bizarre promise to double U.S. exports in five years. Does this mean he expects the dollar to drop dramatically? He also announced the launching of "a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security" (more on that topic here), and vowed to "seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are." Nothing here, other than a cursory, noncommittal mention of the Doha round, indicates that Obama views trade as anything other than a zero-sum game. There's a name for this approach to trade: mercantilism.

Now, I have to ask: What does Hounshell really know about mercantilism? Has he slogged through the math of even one economic model that shows that multilateral free trade agreements always benefit all parties (hint: it's pretty easy to show that they don't)? Has he carefully examined the assumptions of even one such model? Has he heard about or read a detailed exposition of even one model with alternative conclusions? Can he show me historical, statistical, or other data that demonstrate that export promotion leads a country to ruin?

And for that matter, can Hounshell give one good reason of any kind why a country would do better to actively refrain from promoting its exports?

My guess is: "No." Hounshell has an idea of "mercantilism" as a very bad and dangerous thing and "free trade" as its opposite. but he doesn't understand why that idea might be right, and he doesn't really know where he got the idea in the first place. There are a lot of people out there like this.

Over at Economist's View, Mark Thoma agrees that Obama's speech was mercantilist, but has a decidedly more balanced, nuanced, informed take:

The problem is that if (net) exports don't lead the way, then consumption or investment must fill the void if the private sector is going to take care of this on its own. But neither of those seems likely to grow fast enough to accomplish this, at least not anytime soon, and there's some question whether they will return to their pre-crisis levels, consumption growth in particular.

Paul Krugman's point [in this article] was that if consumption, investment, and net exports can't support the growth we need to maintain employment, then government must use aggressive measures to bridge the gap until the private sector can make the necessary adjustments.

I leave it to the reader to decide whether Hounshell's instinctual fear of "mercantilism" outweighs Thoma and Krugman's more well-explicated argument for Obama-style export promotion...

Update: Obama's export targets don't look too unrealistic.