Disscussion question - Assignment Example

Discussion question Discussion question Determine what the U.S. should do to ensure the availability of strategic materials in which it has a comparative advantage. Explain your rationale.America is well known superpower and therefore, should ensure availability of strategic materials such as oil in order to sustain its superiority. American have come up with several strategies, which will make them not at any point miss access to the most significant strategic materials. According to Lovett, Eckes, & Brinkman (2004), these strategies include putting up sanction and embargo.

Embargo is when export to a country is prohibited from its ports or, it simply meant a halt to all types of trade. This is contrary to non-importation where imports or ship entries are not allowed. Effecting of sanctions and embargoes might do more harm than beneficial to a country for this reason; it should be done carefully after assessment of the possible aftermaths. America at one point had an embargo on almost all commodities excluding oil; this was because oil is one of their economies’ driving forces.

The other strategy is through innovations which drive towards sustainable growth and quality jobs. Based on the idea that US economy is reliant on fossil fuels, it is tremendously valuable for the US government to protect consumers and businesses against harmful price shocks. Lovett, Eckes & Brinkman (2004) further explains that it has been the government’s role to assure continuous supply of strategic materials such as oil. For a long time, the U.S has left this task to the national defense stockpile which ensures that materials needed are available in time of war and this meant leaving it to the free market to guarantee supply for the industrial economy.

In order to trim down US dependence on doubtful sources of supply of strategic materials need to be based on a combination of approaches (Lovett, Eckes, & Brinkman 2004).Through planned purchasing and procurement, the state ensures availability of strategic materials. When it is done by professional, it is termed as supply management. This makes sure that there is a constant supply of the strategic materials needed to the state and in a reasonable time so that there are no cases of deficit (Lovett, Eckes, & Brinkman (2004).Analyze U.S.

trade policy and determine which elements of that policy are most beneficial and most harmful to the U.S. economy. Explain your reasoning. As many would believe, US policy should be aiming at increasing trade. It is fascinating to note that, not all Americans are happy with the policy makers as the majorly dwell on business importance coupled with overwhelming goodwill that incorporate other priorities.Eckes (2000) argues that for a long time, now majority of American have been supporting the trade policy as they believe that it will improve trade.

For instance, in 2001, poll for congressional university institute found out that 53% favored the idea of eliminating barriers that exist in international trade.According to Eckes (2000), efforts to increasing trade through reducing barriers to trade such as eliminating tariffs have not gone down well on some Americans. According to a poll conducted in June 2005, 32% said that it was proceeding too fast, 41% claiming the rate is moderate and 19% saying it was going to a slow pace. Eckes (2000) further explains that depending on the framing of trade concept, it is evident that a large number of Americans would support the policy.

For instance when it is framed on globalization, an overwhelming majority supports the idea of increasing trade and communication. As many would believe, US policy should be aiming at increasing trade. It is also quite interesting to note that not all Americans are happy with the policy makers as the majorly dwell on business importance and overwhelming goodwill that incorporate other priorities.Eckes (2000) argues that for a long time now majority of American have been supporting the trade policy as they believe that it will improve trade.

For instance, in 2001, poll for congressional university institute found out that 53% favored the idea of eliminating barriers that exist in international trade.According to Eckes (2000), efforts to increasing trade through reducing barriers to trade such as eliminating tariffs have not gone down well on some Americans. According to a poll conducted in June 2005, 32% said that it was proceeding too fast, 41% claiming the rate is moderate and 19% saying it was going at a slow pace.Eckes (2000) further explains that depending on the framing of trade concept 79% of the respondents were for the idea of the trade policy which was about making the world more connected through trade and communication.

In a broad context such as the global economy, the idea is welcome. This is because people believe this will be an opportunity for America to access all the emergent markets because eventually, these countries will enhance their buying potential and expanding to them means key to growth to America. In the case, where lowering trade barrier between America and another country is highlighted something reciprocal a clear majority show s their support for the need to reduce trade barriers. This brings up the key question as to why Americans support this idea of removing barriers when considered to be reciprocal (Eckes, 2000).

The removal of trade barriers reciprocally will result into putting pressure on the other countries which in turn gets rid of their barriers. This got a support of 50% from the public who believed that this idea of forcing other nations to eliminate their barriers. This will make America buy goods from these countries cheaply.Americans are not opposing the trade expansion policy but are not pleased by the policy makers’ ways of handling the issue of international trade expansion. Their main reasoning for not offering their support was that policy makers were not concerned about dealing with the effects of trade on American jobs, the poor population in other countries and the environment (Eckes, 2000).

Analyze the effects of globalization on the U.S. economy, and determine who benefits and who does not. Use examples to support your response.Globalization has made America move most of their manufacturing jobs to other foreign countries where it is cheap to do business. Additionally technical and services jobs are experiencing a massive exodus to foreign labor as well. This can be termed as outsourcing. This was explained by the ex- US head George Bush who said that American education system cannot be matched by any other in the world but still these trained professionals cannot get jobs in America unlike for other countries.

He expressed deep concern on globalization as he believes it will result into many American leave for greener pastures in other countries (Bertho, Crawford & Fogarty, 2008).According to Bertho, Crawford & Fogarty (2008), globalization has resulted in greater challenges, economic problems locally and better opportunities internationally. On the other hand, it has led to local work force struggling to secure employment as most of the opportunities which they might have landed on have been taken by other people in other countries.

Because of globalization peers are no longer looking for job opportunities against their peers locally but against people in other countries. Incases where there is the need for competent employees in other countries, would mean that this employees will be the one who will be taken to this countries. This will mean even more threat as they will take up places which would be occupied by original residents of that country. With the chance of working abroad and increased payment package, the employee will not be in for blame.

Bertho, Crawford & Fogarty (2008) further suggest that apart from globalization denying the youths from the affected country the opportunity to employment, the revenue and duties generated is also enjoyed by the host country and brain draining the affected country in terms of talent and technology.It has been realize that becoming big in the globalizing economy is the way out. This is evident in the recent cases of mergers such as Daimler-Benz and Chrysler, Exxon and Mobil. Bertho, Crawford & Fogarty (2008) argues that big winners will also be big companies, so the lesion is that for any company to survive globalization it has to get big fast with the quickest way to do so is through megamergers as the example given above.

Analyze how NAFTA impacts stakeholders and discuss whether the United State of America would be better off economically without NAFTA.According to Caulfield, (2010), NAFTA was designed to promote free and fair trade between the U.S, Canada and Mexico through reducing barrier to trade and investments. The effect of NAFTA on the member countries has proved complex in that its impact on the three economies have remained to be difficult to understand. Since its inception, it has been found to increase trade flow.

This is evident as merchandise trade has more than tripled since it inception in 1994.Caulfield, (2010) argues that Lowering of trade barriers and increasing competition; reduction of trade barriers has led to increased competition. This is possible as prices will be brought down, consumers will choose from a wide range of commodities. Lowering barriers also makes access to product and services easier than when the barriers are tightened throughout North America.Foreign direct investment in Mexico has been made possible by lowering of trade barriers in the northern region through NAFTA.

This has led into upgrading of industrial foundation and better infrastructure; this would mean economic expansion, foreign trade diversification and better living standards (Caulfield, 2010).NAFTA has been argued to cause “de-industrialization” of America. It is believed that several American industries have been displaced into Mexico therefore creating more industrial jobs in Mexico than in America (Caulfield, 2010).Caulfield (2010) further explains that since the inception of NAFTA, America has experienced increased trade deficits with Mexico and Canada.

This means that an attempt by America to pull out of NAFTA would bring down the trade deficit between these countries tremendously as it was earlier before the formation of NAFTA.References.Bertho, M., Crawford, B., & Fogarty, E. A. (2008). The impact of globalization on the United States. Westport, Conn.: PraegerCaulfield, N. (2010). NAFTA and labor in North America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Eckes, A. E. (2000). Revisiting U.S. trade policy decisions in perspective. Athens: Ohio University Press.Lovett, W. A.

, Eckes, A. E., & Brinkman, R. L. (2004). U.S. trade policy: history, theory, and the WTO (2nd ed.). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.