Author: s.mednick

Politicians (especially Trump and his administration) talk a lot about helping workers who have been adversely affected by global trade. But, this article argues, they rarely offer solutions. This article argues that the loss of these jobs are largely due to automation and not free trade, so those jobs are not going to come back regardless of changes in trade policy. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin made this disturbingly inaccurate statement about the automation of work:  “It’s not even on our radar screen … 50-100 more years.” Further, this article argues that all players (schools, businesses, state governments, etc.), not just the federal government, have to address the problem seriously and come up with solutions.

Researchers found that in 2007 alone, about 762,400 people around the world died prematurely because they were exposed to pollution emitted to make goods used somewhere else. By outsourcing jobs to other countries with fewer regulations and more pollution, US workers have avoided a lot of premature deaths. About 102,000 premature deaths of citizens in other countries were the result of pollutants emmitted during the production og goods and services used in the US. The US ranks second on this list, Western Europe ranks number 1.  http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-pollution-trade-deaths-20170331-htmlstory.html

This article reminded me that trade is fragile and impacted by a number of other factors. This article is about the adverse affect THAAD is having on Chinese-South Korean relations. China is angry about the missile system, as we discussed, and is taking retaliatory actions against South Korea, including music and television boycotts. So far, South Korea has lodged a complaint with the WTO but China has declined to meet with them directly to work out their disputes.

“It would be up to South Korea to follow up on its complaint to the WTO for any action to take place, analysts say, either by continuing to raise its concerns and spelling out what China is doing wrong, or by launching a trade dispute.”

There is a new head of the World Bank – Kristalina Georgieva from Bulgaria. Georgieva is a proponent for world trade and tried to make some points for why it’s a good thing, even giving credit to China while suggesting that it increase domestic competition. Bonus in this article: an interview with John McCain about TPP.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-world-bank-chief-stumps-for-global-trade/

This article helps clarify important terminology about trade. A “surplus” isn’t necessarily good and a “deficit” isn’t necessarily bad. Talking about trade that way is simplistic. In fact, trade deficits are historically a sign of a stronger economy.

If the goods and services available to the American people are greater as a result of international trade, then Americans are wealthier, not poorer, regardless of whether there is a “deficit” or “surplus” in the international balance of trade.

– Thomas Sowell, 2015. Basic Economics, 5th Edition, p. 476-477

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-idUSKBN16Q09D

“Acquiescing to an increasingly protectionist United States after a two-day meeting in the German town of Baden-Baden, the finance ministers and central bank governors of the 20 biggest economies dropped a pledge to keep global trade free and open.”

This was a blow-back to Germany which is a major exporting country. We’ve been talking in class about how Germany might assume the role of leadership since the US is no longer reliable. But what happens if their economy starts failing because of anti-globalization movements?

This is a specific example of the failure of the global community to guarantee fair conditions for workers in developing countries. It relates to global trade because multinational corporations often take advantage of the already poor conditions in developing countries and then exacerbate the problem. I wrote my paper about this topic and this article was very informative and contains powerful images.

The Cobalt Pipeline – The Washington Post

 

Introducting the concept of the Internet of Agreements: “Machine-readable laws and machine-readable contracts enable machine-managed supply chains.” Theorectically, using computers to manage the supply chain process, conduct due diligence, and ensure parties in a trade agreement are holding up to their agreements, would make the who process smoother and enable transparency between nations. As of now, verification of agreed upon processes along the global supply chain is a patchwork of paper forms such as payslips, bills of lading, safety certificates. Makes a lot of sense to fully digitize this.

Sorry, But China Won’t Replace America As The Leader Of Free Trade Any Time Soon

This article explains why China won’t replace the US as the leader of free trade. I found it interesting that it’s less about how powerful China is and more about its transparency. The following point demonstrates how important foreign diplomacy is and that acting out of self-interest isn’t always really in a country’s self-interest.

“China’s exclusion from the TPP was not based on the West’s desire to thwart its rise as an economic power or to hold back its cross-border trade. The issue was, and still is, China’s objective of promoting its own self-interest at the expense of its trading partners and the greater rules-based trading system.”

For now, no one country will be the leader of free trade.

“Trump’s threatened tariffs and other trade barriers could violate WTO rules and bring blowback from other countries in the trade organization. But the agenda signals the Trump administration could simply ignore those complaints.”

As expected, Trump is threatening to pull back from international trade agreements, and has gone further in saying it might ignore the WTO. Choosing not to abide by WTO resolutions or accept its findings in disputes signals a major departure from American trade policy and could have far reaching effects. For example, other countries could decide to walk away also, or directly retaliate against US manufacturers. This seems to me like total arrogance – the Administration assumes that no global organization actually helps the US and the US is always treated unfairly on the world stage. But the WTO has ruled in favor of the US in previous disputes, and the US has used the WTO to register complaints against other countries. Ignoring the TWO could decrease our influence in the world and hurt US businesses.