Archive for the 'Globalization' Category

Feb 20 2017

Some thoughts on educating students for “success” and “happiness” in the 21st century

Today we returned to work after a relaxing week of holiday-making for a day of “professional development”. The day kicked off with our school’s director sharing some information about a recent audit of our school’s parent community, which revealed that there is great anxiety among the parents at our school about their children’s experiences in school today, mostly relating to how well they will achieve on their examinations and whether their levels of achievement will assure them entrance to the top universities to which they (both the parents and the students) aspire.

The ultimate source of this anxiety, it would seem, is not the immediate importance of exam scores or even college acceptances, rather the deeper concern among parents that their children may grow up to be less successful than they themselves have been in their careers. I am sure that this anxiety is one experienced by nearly every parent in the history of mankind: from our primitive ancestors who stressed over their children’s abilities (or lack thereof) with a bow and arrow to blue collar workers of the 20th century who worked 80 hours a week to be able to send their children to state colleges where they may learn a skill that would raise their lot in the future. The parents of my students today likewise fear that their own children may grow up to be less successful in the fields they believe to be worthy of their children: business, finance, law, technology, management, and so on.

In fact, the parents whom our school serves are some of the most successful people in the world in their respective fields. They have risen to the top levels of management in multi-national corporations. They sit at the pinnacles of global financial institutions. Many are successful entrepreneurs or investors who have proudly raised their children in a world of luxury. The very fact that they send their children to our school is evidence of their own career accomplishments (we are a very expensive private school in one of the richest countries in the world).

It is for this reason that I believe nearly all these parents’ should be very anxious about their children’s futures. It is natural for parents to want their children to achieve what they have achieved (or greater!). It is natural for parents to desire for their children to be able to enjoy the living standards they have been afforded thanks to their own accomplishments in business, finance or law. As I have said, every parent in history has wanted as much for their children.

But is it realistic for a major league pitcher to wish for his son to grow up to throw a ball 105 miles per hour? Certainly not.
I believe that today it is less likely than it has been for generations that a child growing up at the top of the socioeconomic ladder will, in fact, achieve the level of professional success and the resulting income and living standard that their parents achieved. These parents’ anxieties are 100% justified and they have very little reason to believe their children will someday earn the incomes they enjoy today.

Here’s why: The entire trajectory of the global economy has shifted since my students’ parents embarked on the career paths that led them to where they are today. Globalization and technological change have displaced (or replaced) many of the blue collar jobs that Europeans and American counted on for a decent living standard in the 20th century, and these same processes have already begun to affect the white collar careers on which many of my students imagine their future paths taking them. The knowledge and skills we teach in schools today will be increasingly devalued in the future.

Knowledge will become a free good as artificial intelligence and other information technologies reduce the barriers to acquiring knowledge to zero. Likewise, the gaps in global skill levels and productivity that allowed the growth of incomes in Europe and North America to exceed those in the rest of the world throughout the 20th century have already begun to narrow, evidenced by a decade of low or no growth in the rich world and nearly 5% growth in the rest of the world. This means the pool of skilled workers of which my students will eventually be a part will be vastly broader and deeper than that in which their parents competed.

The knowledge and the skills we teach our students in school today will only continue to be devalued in the future, meaning students whose future aspirations are based on the assumption that such learning objectives will assure them a high income and living standard will find themselves drowning in a labor pool in which they have less economic value than they ever have in history.

Stated simply, value is a function of scarcity, and as skilled and knowledgeable workers become less scarce, those whose only assets are what they “learned in school” will find themselves far less likely to achieve the levels of income that those of earlier generations did.

The implication of technological advancement and globalization (both the defining forces of our century) for education is that unless we begin teaching something NEW and DIFFERENT than what was taught in the last century, our students will almost certainly not achieve what their parents (educated in the last century) have been able to achieve with their educations.

So this begs the question: What can students learn in school today that WILL help them achieve the levels of success and happiness to which all parents aspire for their children?

I think the answer to this question also came up in this morning’s speech by my school’s director. He closed by sharing a quote from a student who recently graduated from my school in which the student reflected on what he learned on a school trip to Nepal during his last week before graduating (as part of our “classroom without walls” experience). After spending a week with the orphans of Kathmandu and in a Buddhist monastery in the Himalayan foothills, this student returned to Switzerland with a new understanding of what happiness meant. He realized for the first time in his life that happiness was not measured by how many material things we surround ourselves with, but by the relationships we have with others in our community and by our connection to both other human beings and the natural and spiritual worlds.

My question (and concern) is: Why did it take until this student’s last week of school before he came to this important understanding? Is this not the most important lesson he could possibly learn? Should only those students lucky enough to spend a week in the Nepalese slums come to such important understandings about life, happiness and success?

I wonder if it would relieve our parents’ anxieties if we shifted our focus in school today to place less emphasis on a pre-determined set of rapidly depreciating knowledge and skills and more emphasis on relationships, connections with the community and the environment and spiritual self-awareness.

I wonder what our parents would say if we told them that our school’s focus were shifting from providing their children with information and skills that will earn them the best examination results to instilling in them an awareness of and an understanding that happiness is measured not by what you have, but by what you are able to live without.

Will parents understand that their children’s pursuit of a high paying job based on the same knowledge and skills that they learned in school will prove fruitless in an era where knowledge and skills are no longer scarce?

Will they agree that what matters is not their children’s future success as measured by their income and material well-being, rather their future happiness?

I wonder whether my students’ parents realize how justified their anxieties are. And I hope they understand that if or when their children do not succeed on the paths they envision them pursuing, it won’t be their own faults; rather, it is the inexorable outcome in an era where knowledge and skills are continually devalued by technology and globalization.

Henry David Thoreau, who shed the burden of materialistic pursuits for a simple life in the forest, once said, “A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.”

The happiness of being able to do without material things is that to which our education today must aspire. The path my students’ parents followed will become increasingly narrow and unattainable for the next generation. Therefore, a rethinking of what we teach and, in fact, value, is necessary to achieve happiness for our students in the future.

Many schools have embraced the alternative path to happiness envisioned by Thoreau and others throughout history. The awareness that true happiness is not attained by the pursuit of money and status, rather a connection with our community, the natural world and our spiritual selves and an embrace of simplicity over complexity is nothing new. The Buddha new it, Jesus knew it, Emerson and Thoreau knew it.

The question is, do our students know it? Do their parents know it? Heck, do I know it? And once we’re aware of this truth, how can we begin to redesign our schools’ learning objectives so that our students leave school with a truly attainable path to happiness and success, perhaps of a different kind from that imagined by their parents, but one that will certainly be more achievable and just as valuable in a future in which the spoils of global economic activity will be more evenly distributed between the world’s people than it has ever been in history.

Comments Off on Some thoughts on educating students for “success” and “happiness” in the 21st century

Feb 27 2012

A closer look at Apple’s iPad and iPhone – “made in America”?

I have two  interesting stories on Apple and the iPad to reflect on today.

First, ABC’s Nightline recently became the first Western journalists actually welcomed into an Apple assembly plant in China. The show recently aired a 15 minute feature on working conditions inside Apple’s Foxconn factory in Shenzhen, China last week. Watch the video and then scroll down for what may be some additional surprising news about Apple’s operations in China.

Next, the story that has gone unreported lately is a University of California study titled “Capturing Value in Global Networks: Apple’s iPad and iPhone”. The study’s most interesting finding, in my opinion, is the tiny percentage of the total value of Apple’s iPhone and iPad that actually goes to the Chinese manufacturers of the products. The charts below, from the study, show how the value is divided among the various groups involved it their production and sales:

The Economist provides the analysis:

The chart shows a geographical breakdown of the retail price of an iPad. The main rewards go to American shareholders and workers. Apple’s profit amounts to about 30% of the sales price. Product design, software development and marketing are based in America. Add in the profits and wages of American suppliers, and distribution and retail costs, and America retains about half the total value of an iPad sold there. The next biggest gainers are South Korean firms like Samsung and LG, which provide the display and memory chips, whose profits account for 7% of an iPad’s value. The main financial benefit to China is wages paid to workers for assembling the product and for manufacturing some inputs—equivalent to only 2% of the retail price.

A student today asked why Apple doesn’t produce its products in the United States, where an economic downturn has left 14 million American out of work for the last three or four years. If iPads and iPhones were just made in America, jobs could be created, households would have more income to spend on Apples products, and both the country and the economy would benefit.

The data in the UC study indicates that in fact, more than half the value of an iPad or iPhone does end up in the hands of Americans. But Apple could never achieve the low costs and high profits that it does by assembling its products in the US. After watching the Nightline video above, it should be clear that the type of production involved in Apple factories’ is very low-skilled and labor-intensive. Using American labor, with its unions, minimum wages and 40 hour work weeks, would require Apple to employ such large numbers of workers and raise the company’s variable cost to such a level that the firm’s profits would be reduced significantly and its sales would fall dramatically. Apple would lose out to foreign producers of smart phones and tablet computers, such as LG, Samsung, Sony and others, which would continue assembling their goods with Chinese labor.

Ultimately, any gain to the low-skilled American workers (presuming Apple could even find enough to do the work of the 400,000 Chinese employed in the production of Apple products in China), would be offset by a loss of profits enjoyed by the millions of Americans who hold shares in Apple Computer and the thousands of American who are employed engineering and designing its products, as the firm’s sales would slip in the face of lower-cost competitors.

So this student’s question identifies an interesting paradox: America, with its large pool of unemployed workers, will never be attractive as a place to produce labor-intensive products such as phones and tablet computers, due to the vast wage differential between the US and China. And even if one firm did decide to produce its products in America, the gains to low-skilled workers who may find minimum wage work in the new assembly plants would be off-set by losses to the firms’ shareholders and the high-skilled workers whose jobs would be lost as sales decline due to the lower prices offered by lower-cost competitors.

The lesson here is two-fold: First, Apple and other American technology companies should continue using Chinese labor to assemble their products, and second, America is better off for it: lower costs mean cheaper products and higher sales, thus greater employment in the high-skilled sectors of the US economy, and more profits and returns on the investments of shareholders in American corporations. Americans are richer and enjoy a higher standard of living thanks to the millions of Chinese working in factories assembling the goods we consume.

Keep in mind, this analysis did not even consider the effect on the Chinese economy and the millions of Chinese workers (whose lives are much harder than the typical American) should companies like Apple shut down their Chinese manufacturing plants. That’s a whole other blog post!

5 responses so far

Sep 29 2011

Protectionism’s many weaknesses

After our lesson on tariffs and protectionism the other day, one of my year 2 IB Econ students emailed me with a few questions she had not had the chance to ask in class. I thought I’d post my responses here, since they were such good questions!

Question: Hi Mr Welker, I asked this on Monday’s blog about self-sufficiency, but no one answered my question and I have been meaning to ask this in class but I always get distracted and I forget. And perhaps you have already answered this, pardon me if you have.

Since Exports and Investment have a great effect on economic growth, why would a government want to protect its nation by imposing barriers to trade? Because by doing so, foreign firms cannot invest in that nation and potentially create job opportunities and also contribute to that nations GDP since, even though it’s a foreign investment, the revenue is collected by that government.

Answer: Protectionism is not typically aimed at reducing the amount of exports from the nation engaging in it, rather reducing the amount of imports or promoting increased exports. You’re exactly right that exports and investment contribute to aggregate demand (and therefore economic growth and employment) in a nation. But imports are a ‘leakage’ from the nation’s economy, and the greater the level of import spending, the lower a nation’s net exports. A nation with a trade deficit actually experiences negative net exports. The purpose of protectionism is to reduce import spending, or increase export revenues, and thereby increase net exports and aggregate demand and employment in the nation.

As for foreign investment, one of the consequences of a large trade deficit is increased foreign ownership of domestic resources or factors of production. Since a country that imports more than it exports spends more on foreign goods than it earns from the sale of its own goods to foreigners, foreign governments and firms end up with large amounts of that country’s money that is NOT being spent on that country’s goods. Much of this ends up back in the deficit country as foreign investment. Sometimes foreigners will buy government bonds (invest in the deficit country’s debt, in other words), but sometimes the money comes back home as foreigners buying up factories and real estate. Foreign investment may indeed help create jobs at home, but so does domestic investment, and when foreigners invest it means the country’s resources are now owned by interests abroad, which many countries view as a threat to their national and economic security. This can also serve as a justification for protectionism: to prevent foreign ownership of domestic assets.

Question: Also if the country is not exporting, it’s not enjoying the benefits of revenue from exported goods that could boost their economic growth. And anyway, isn’t the point of making money to spend it? Otherwise what is the incentive of being employed and earning an income? Unless of course, one can argue that income earned can then be spent on domestically produced goods.

Again, the purpose of protectionism is not to reduce a country’s exports, rather to reduce its imports and to increase its exports. But you have made a very important observation here that points to a major flaw in the argument for protectionism. The purpose of exporting goods it to make money to spend on imported goods, otherwise, WHY TRADE? A country gains from trade not only because it has a wider market for its own goods, but because the people of the nation have a wider market from which to choose the goods they themselves can consume. When a nation erects barriers to trade, it will ultimately have the effect of reducing not only imports, but possibly the nation’s own exports. Since foreigners earn less money from selling goods to the protected nation, they have less money to spend on that nation’s goods!

All protectionism can hope to do is increase the welfare of particular industries while reducing the welfare of the rest of society. It is rarely justifiable on the grounds that it will increase the total welfare of society as a whole, unless of course the protected industry is one vital to national security, such as the defense sectors or the energy sector (even this one is debatable!)

Question: Or do government spending (through subsidies, and creating job opportunities) and increased consumption due to income gains caused by government intervention overcome these factors and compensate for the lost opportunity of exports and investments.

Increasing government spending to off-set the fall in social welfare resulting from protectionism will only lead to greater inefficiency in society. Government may have to spend more on unemployment benefits for workers whose jobs are lost due to protectionism, which may require higher taxes on those workers whose jobs are being protected. As explained above, one industry’s gain leads to a loss of welfare for society as a whole. This is the problem with protectionism. It favors certain industries but imposes higher prices on consumers and higher costs of production on other industries. It should not be the government’s job to “pick winners and losers” in the global economy. By protecting certain industries, however, government attempts to do just that, but society as a whole loses.

I hope you understand what I am asking for here. Whenever you have time, I would love to hear your perspective.


Great questions, Maphrida!

Discussion Questions:

  1. How might protectionism lead to an increase in aggregate demand and domestic employment?
  2. Why does a large trade deficit lead to a build-up of foreign ownership of domestic factors of production?
  3. Discuss the view that protectionism in the form of tariffs on particular goods helps certain industries but harms the rest of society. Can you imagine an example of a protectionist policy that could increase the welfare of society as a whole?
  4. Explain how a protectionist policy that makes imports more expensive and thus reduces demand for imported goods can ultimately lead to a reduction in demand for the protected country’s exports abroad.

6 responses so far

Nov 10 2010

Yeah, we have a trade deficit, SO WHAT?!

The following is an excerpt from Chapter 22  – “Balance of Payments” of my soon to be published textbook “Pearson Baccalaureate Economics”

If the total spending by a nation’s residents on goods and services imported from the rest of the world exceeds the revenues earned by the nation’s producers from the sale of exports to the rest of the world, the nation is likely experiencing a current account deficit. The situation is not at all uncommon among many of the world’s trading nations. The map belowmap  represents nations by their cumulative current account balances over the years 1980-2008. The red countries all accumulated current account deficits over the three decades, with the largest by far being the United States with a cumulative deficit of $7.3 trillion. The green countries are ones which have had a cumulative surplus in their current accounts, the largest surplus belonging to Japan at $2.7 trillion, followed by China at $1.5 trillion.


The top ten current account deficit nations are represented below. It is obvious from this chart that the United States alone accounts for a larger current account deficit then the next nine countries combined. At $7.3 trillion dollars in deficits over 28 years, the US deficit surpasses Spain’s (at number 2) by 1,000 percent.

The consequences of a nation having a current account deficit are not immediately clear. It should be pointed out that it is debatable whether a trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing, in fact. Below we will examine some of the facts about current account deficits, and we will conclude by evaluating the pros and cons for countries that run deficits in the short-run and in the long-run.

Implications of persistent current account deficits: When a country like like those above experience deficits in the current account for year after year, there are some predictable consequences that may have adverse effects on the nation’s macroeconomy. These include currency depreciation, foreign ownership of domestic assets, higher interest rates and foreign indebtedness.

The effect of a current account deficit on the exchange rate: In the previous chapter you learned about the determinants of the exchange rate of a nation’s currency relative to another currency. One of the primary determinants of a currency’s exchange rate is the demand for the nation’s exports relative to the demand for imports from other countries. With this in mind, we can examine the likely effects of a current account deficit on a nation’s currency’s exchange rate. Additionally, we will see that under a floating exchange rate system, deficits in the current account should be automatically corrected due to adjustments in exchange rates.

When households and firms in one nation demand more of other countries’ output than the rest of the world demands of theirs, there is upward pressure on the value of trading partners’ currencies and downward pressure on the importing nation’s currency. In this way, a movement towards a current account deficit should cause the deficit country’s currency to weaken.

As an illustration, say that New Zealand’s imports from Japan begin to rise due to rising incomes in New Zealand and the corresponding increase in demand for imports. Assuming Japan’s demand for New Zealand’s output does not change, New Zealand will move towards a deficit in its current account and Japan towards a surplus. In the foreign exchange market, demand for Japanese yen will rise while the supply of NZ$ in Japan increases, as seen above, depreciating the NZ$.

The downward pressure on exchange rates resulting from an increase in a nation’s current account deficit should have a self-correcting effect on the trade imbalance. As the NZ$ weakens relative to its trading partners’ currencies, consumers in New Zealand will start to find imports more and more expensive, while consumers abroad will, over time, begin to find products from New Zealand cheaper. In this way, a flexible exchange rate system should, in the long-run, eliminate surpluses and deficits between nations in the current account. The persistence of global trade imbalances illustrated in the map above is evidence that in reality, the ability of flexible exchange rates to maintain balance in nations’ current accounts is quite limited.

Foreign ownership of domestic assets: By definition, the balance of payments must always equal zero. For this reason, a deficit in the current account must be offset by a surplus in the capital and financial accounts. If the money spent by a deficit country on goods from abroad ends up in the does not end up returning to the deficit country for the purchase of goods and services, it will be re-invested into the county through foreign acquisition of domestic real and financial assets, or held in reserve by surplus nations’ central banks.

Essentially, a country with a large current account deficit, since it cannot export enough goods and services to make up for its spending on imports, instead ends up “exporting ownership” of its financial and real assets. This could take the form of foreign direct investment in domestic firms, increased portfolio investment by foreigners in the domestic economy, and foreign ownership of domestic government debt, or the build up of foreign reserves of the deficit nation’s currency.

The effect on interest rates: A persistent deficit in the current account can have adverse effects on the interest rates and investment in the deficit country. As explained above, a current account deficit can put downward pressure on a nation’s exchange rate, which causes inflation in the deficit country as imported goods, services and raw materials become more expensive. In order to prevent massive currency depreciation, the country’s central bank may be forced to tighten the money supply and raise domestic interest rates to attract foreign investors and keep demand for the currency and the exchange rate stable. Additionally, since a current account deficit must be offset by a financial account surplus, the deficit country’s government may need to offer higher interest rates on government bonds to attract foreign investors. Higher borrowing rates for the government and the private sector can slow domestic investment and economic growth in the deficit nation.

Side note: While the interest rate effect of a large current account deficit should be negative (i.e. causing interest rates to rise in the deficit country), in recent years the country with the largest trade deficit, the United States, has actually experienced record low interest rates even while maintaining persistent current account deficits. This can be understood by examining by the macroeconomic conditions of the US and global economies, in which deflation posed a greater threat than inflation over the years 2008-2010. The fear of deflation combined with low confidence in the private sector among international investors has kept demand for US government bonds high even as the US trade deficit has grown, allowing the US government and central bank to keep interest rates low and continue to attract foreign investors.

Whereas under “normal” macroeconomic conditions a build up of US dollars among America’s trading partners would require the US to raise interest rates to create an incentive for foreign investors to re-invest that money into the US economy, in the environment of uncertainty and low confidence in the private sector that has prevailed over the last several years, America’s trading partners have been willing to finance its current account deficit at record low interest rates.

The effect on indebtedness: A large current account deficit is synonymous with a large financial account surplus. One source of credits in the financial account is foreign ownership of domestic government bonds (i.e. debt). When a central bank from another nation buys government bonds from a nation with which it has a large current account surplus, the deficit nation is essentially going into debt to the surplus nation. For instance, as of August 2010, the Chinese central bank held $868 billion of United States Treasury Securities (government bonds) on its balance sheet. In total, the amount of US debt owned by foreign nations in 2010 was $4.2 trillion, or around 50% of the country’s total national debt and 30% of its GDP.source:

On the one hand, foreign lending to a deficit nation is beneficial because it keeps demand for government bonds high and interest rates low, which allows the deficit country’s government to finance its budget without raising taxes on domestic households and firms. On the other hand, every dollar borrowed from a foreigner has to be repaid with interest. Interest payments on the national debt cost US taxpayers over $400 billion in 2010, making up around 10% of the federal budget. Nearly half of this went to foreign holders of US debt, meaning almost $200 billion of US taxpayer money was handed over to foreign interests, without adding a single dollar to aggregate demand in the US.

The opportunity cost of foreign owned national debt is the public goods and services that could have been provided with the money that instead is owed in interest to foreign creditors. If the US current account were more balanced, foreign countries like China would not have the massive reserves of US dollars to invest in government debt in the first place, and the taxpayer money going to pay interest on this debt could instead be invested in the domestic economy to promote economic growth and development.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Why would a large current account deficit cause a nation’s currency to depreciate? How could a weaker currency automatically reduce a nation’s current account deficit?
  2. Why should governments be concerned about a large trade deficit? What is one policy a government could implement to reduce a deficit in the current account?
  3. Would a nation with a large trade deficit be better off without trade at all? Why or why not?
  4. Discuss the validity of the following claim: “Americans buy tons of Chinese imports, but the Chinese don’t buy anything from America, this is why the US has such a huge trade deficit with China”. To what extent is this claim true or false?

8 responses so far

Oct 07 2010

US / China Trade War – Could this be the beginning?

This post was originally published on September 15, 2009. It is being reposted today for my year 2 IB Econ students, who are studying free trade and protectionism as part of Unit 4 of the IB Econ course.

US president Barack Obama made a speech directly to Wall Street today. In his speech, Obama reflected on the many lessons America has learned in the last year since the financial crisis began. He urged his audience of investors, bankers and brokers that

“Normalcy cannot lead to complacency,” Obama said. “Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them.”

“They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation’s,” the president added.

In addition to his warnings about the threat posed by overly risky financial markets to the US economy, President Obama expressed his commitment to free trade and “the fight against protectionism”.

Obama says:

…enforcing trade agreements is part and parcel of maintaining an open and free trading system.

The enforcement of existing trade agreements Obama refers to is his way of justifying a decision his administration made over the weekend that actually limits free trade between America and one of its largest trading partners, China.

Trade relations between two of the world’s biggest economies deteriorated after Barack Obama, US president, signed an order late on Friday to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese tyre imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff.

In his first big test on world trade since taking office in January, Mr Obama sided with America’s trade unions, which have complained that a “surge” in imports of Chinese-made tyres had caused 7,000 job losses among US factory workers.

So, in his speech today, Obama decries protectionism and calls for expanded trade and free trade agreements which are “absolutely essential to our economic future”. But only three days ago, he supported a blatantly protectionist measure aimed at keeping foreign produced goods out of America in order to save a few thousand American jobs.

Obama’s decision is a bad one for several reasons. As an economics teacher, I will turn firstly to a diagram for an illustration of the net loss to the American people of higher tariffs on imported tires:
Tire protection

The key point to notice in the above graph is that a tariff on imported tires results in a net loss of welfare in America. The blue area represents the increase in the welfare of tire manufactures (this could be interpreted as the jobs saved in the tire industry and the profits earned due to higher prices); the black areas, on the other hand, are welfare loss. Since all tire consumers in America pay more for their tires due to the 35% tariff, real income is affected negatively for the nation as a whole.

One effect of the protectionist policy the graph does not illustrate, and perhaps the most serious negative impact of the tariff on America, is the response the Chinese are likely to take to what they interpret as a violation of existing free trade agreements between the US and China.

“This is a grave act of trade protectionism,” Mr Chen said in a statement. “Not only does it violate WTO rules, it contravenes commitments the US government made at the [April] G20 financial summit.”

Beijing said it had requested WTO-sanctioned consultations with the US over Washington’s new duties on tyres. Yao Jian, a commerce ministry spokesman, said the duties were in ”violation of WTO rules”.

China said it would now investigate imports of US poultry and vehicles, responding to complaints from domestic companies.

The problems with protectionism are myriad. Clearly American consumers suffer through higher tire prices. In addition, Chinese manufacturers will see sales fall as their product becomes less competitive in the US market. According to the CCTV report below, as many as 9,000 workers in the Chinese tire industry will lose their livelihoods due to declining demand from the US. But the unforseen effects of the US tariff on Chinese tires is the retaliatory measures China will almost certainly take. If China imposes new tariffs on American automobiles and poultry, the scenario in the graph above will be reversed, and Chinese consumers will face higher prices, Chinese car and poultry producers will experience rising sales, while the American auto worker and chicken farmer will suffer.

Free trade tends to result in net benefits for economies that choose to participate in it. American tire manufacturers are certainly harmed by cheap Chinese imports; however, America as a whole benefits through cheaper goods, more consumer surplus, higher incomes in China and therefore greater demand for imports of products made in America. The road to protectionism is a dangerous path to take for the Obama administration. Justifying these new tariffs by claiming that they “enforce existing free trade agreements” is a political maneuver aimed at covering up the truth, which is that the Obama administration has sided with a special interest group to save a few thousand jobs and garner political favor at a time when 700,000 American jobs are being lost each month. By doing so, he is calling into question his own commitment to free trade, and harming America’s image as a global proponent of global economic integration.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Why is the Chinese government so upset about a new tax on such an insignificant product as automobile tires?
  2. “Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty”: Do you agree?
  3. Some would say that it is a small price to pay for Americans to face higher prices for one product like tires in order to “save” 7,000 Americans’ jobs. Would you agree? Why or why not?
  4. If 7,000 Americans were to lose their jobs due to free trade with China, what would we call the type of unemployment experienced by these workers? Is this the same type of unemployment experienced by the 700,000 workers who have lost their jobs each month during the last year of recession in the United States?

33 responses so far

Next »