Trade policy
What we do know is that the next President of the United States, whoever she or he may be, will have the authority to negotiate new trade agreements. The analysis on a previous one and its impact on economic presented below by professional essay writing service. What we don’t know is whether he or she will be negotiating the next trade agreements in the context of having a Transpacific Partnership Trade Agreement (TPP) in place, or one in which there is no TPP. Either scenario creates its own set of policy imperatives, but what are those?
Today the Washington International Trade Association (WITA) is launching its Next Generation Trade (NextGenTrade) initiative. NextGenTrade™ will identify emergent trade issues that will be at the center of trade discussions, negotiations and disputes in the years to come. Through NextGenTrade, WITA will lead this conversation, educate the public, and equip trade professionals to address the issues constructively. You may also get an essay help on this issue.
The dialogue about international trade is overheated, polarized, and stale. The same arguments have been made for decades. Today, with information coming from so many sources, policymakers and the public create their own filters for information and immediately categorize what they see as being either “pro-trade” or “anti-trade/protectionist.” Once so characterized, the reader immediately discounts the facts presented, and attributes them to the bias of the organization presenting the information.Custom essay writing service may analyse established situation from any desired approach .
On February 17, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law a gargantuan set of policies and provisions known as The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The ARRA serves as the economic stimulus package that is so badly needed by Americans and as expected, also addresses matters of trade. The bill includes a controversial provision, referred to in The Washington Post as the ‘Buy American rider,’ which essentially restricts the use of foreign steel and iron in public works funded by the package. (Faiola, 2009) It and similar provisions have invited a mountain of criticism from various trading partners, including (but not limited to) Mexico, Canada and the European Union, and as such, Obama backpedaled on the issue by revising the provisions so that it does not violate existing trade agreements. (Spillius, 2009) Even American companies that stand to benefit have noted that it has the potential to undermine trade itself, should a trade war emerge, and already some countries such as Canada have enacted retaliatory measures. (Faiola, 2009; O’Connor, 2009) However, international criticism is not a reliable measure of the soundness of economic policy, American or otherwise.
What Obama is attempting to do, between legislative remedies to American financial woes and the use of diplomatic leverage to hold a conversation about where the global economy is headed, is address the imbalances that have defined American fiscal policies for nearly a century. As such, it would be a mistake to say that Obama’s protectionist angle of approach is the wrong one. One of the historical conditions that have permitted the American economy to implode the way it has is because of the large deficit that has accrued from trade imbalances. Essentially speaking, unsustainable consumption was the driver for economic growth worldwide, and went unchecked. That American financial institutions treated credit irresponsibly merely exacerbated the problem. (Scherer, 2009) Protectionism is treated by pundits like a dirty word, but it is exactly what the Obama administration is adopting, and it ultimately aids the American economy. Obama could do better than merely restrict the use of steel and iron: While it would be impractical for the United States to shut itself out of global trade, it is important to address the very trade imbalances that have very real and very proven long-term consequences for Americans.
At the core of Obama’s stance on trade is a recognition that in the 21st century, the only trade policy that makes sense for the Obama administration to adopt is one that incentivizes businesses and manufacturers to become more competitive and supplemented by his already existent goals towards making American cities attractive to foreign investment, taking better care of American laborers and positioning American industries into key areas of the future (i.e. new energy industries and green collar jobs) If anything, the U.S. is in the same position that some of its trading partners had already been in before: inundated with cheap foreign products and without the necessary government support to become competitive. Such a reversal of fortune means restrictive trade measures are necessary. Some say protectionism only allows companies to wallow in domestic monopoly, but markets are finite and eventually all companies will want to emerge to be trade competitive. Were global free trade to go unregulated in America, this would never happen.
REFERENCES:
Spillius, A. (2009, January 30) “US-EU trade war looms as Barack Obama bill urges ‘Buy American’,” The Telegraph. Online version retrieved on June 1, 2009 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4389597/US-EU-trade-war-looms-as-Barack-Obama-bill-urges-Buy-American.html
O’Connor, S. (2009, May 25) “Obama urged to curb Buy American plan,” The Financial Times. Online version retrieved on May 31, 2009 from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc64a52e-4958-11de-9e19-00144feabdc0.html
Faiola, A. (2009, January 29) “’Buy American’ Rider Sparks Trade Debate,” The Washington Post. Online version retrieved on May 30, 2009 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012804002.html
Scherer, M. (2009, April 1) “The G-20’s Hidden Issue: A Global Trade Imbalance.” Time Magazine. Online version retrieved on June 1, 2009 from: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888947,00.html
Tags:
Category: Essay Examples
← Previous post
Next post →
