Book Summary: The Strategic Logic Of Trade

My chosen topic to research is, why global business and international trade is important to the U.S.? This topic is relevant to the U.S. as it directly relates to economical lives today and the future. We need to realize the significance of trade and consequently to continue to be a successful nation in providing for the next generations. This international trade is paramount to the U.S. to “maximize product and efficiency; increase market audience and receive foreign direct investment.” (Satterlee 2014). Within the Agriculture industry, the U.S. export reached $152.5 billion over five-year period. In the hearing to pass the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) it showed the

The international trade sector of the U.S. economy continues to draw attention in economic and political circles. It is true that, the international market has become increasingly important as a source of demand for U.S. production and a source of supply for U.S. consumption. Indeed, it is substantially more important than is implied by the usual measures that relate the size of the international sector to the overall economy. This paper explores the role international trade now plays in the U.S. economy and answers the important questions for economic policy: How does international trade affect economic well-being? Who gains and who loses from free

Trade is critical to America’s prosperity, fueling economic growth and supporting jobs at home. Trade with

From the signing of the first free trade agreement, various views heavily cloud the concept; in the recent period

Some might say that trading can lead countries to have surpluses or shortages that will harm their economies, however, by balancing importations and exportations the countries involved in trade benefit their own communities by providing them with foreign products that consumers will be willing to purchase allowing the country’s economy to grow. Some people like our current president might oppose against this idea, “…he has condemned the 22-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, on the shaky argument that it’s costing American jobs” (Epstein, 2016), however, by further analyzing statistics and facts, a country cannot deal with its own without having the necessity of trading and communicating with other countries. It is unlikely possible for a country to survive with an economy where only national products and produced and consumed. A possible concern about the idea of trading might be losing national jobs created for the country’s own society, but a country like the U.S has a history of continuous mass of immigration from different countries around the world that have helped sustain the country’s

With the United States currently experiencing another presidential election the world is in suspense, watching to see who will become the next leader of the free world. Such halt corresponds to the running of two presidential candidates: Hillary D. Clinton and Donald J. Trump. Such halt derives from candidates proposed trade policies for the United States and its ramifications. This emphasis on trade originates from this idea that we live in a globalized economy and with the United States being a predominate actor within the international community, policies, for instance, that do not support globalize trade potentially harm developing and developed countries who have ties to the U.S.. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share similarities amongst their trade agendas; for example, Clinton’s policies surrounding trade must “work” for the U.S. while Trump 's objective is to renegotiate current and future trade agreements to better suit the U.S.. Therefore, each candidate’s trade proposal must undergo an evaluation of the potential outcomes that derive from each proposal and identify which candidate 's agenda is better suited for the United States and the global aim to liberalize trade. Candidate Hillary Clinton’s trade policies, although minimal in its size, maintains relationships with allied countries and does not harm the United States in trade; while on the other hand, candidate Donald Trump’s trade policies lead to negative ramifications that hurt the

With the United States currently experiencing another presidential election the world is in suspense, watching to see who will become the next leader of the free world. Such halt corresponds to the running of two presidential candidates: Hillary D. Clinton and Donald J. Trump. Such halt derives from candidates proposed trade policies for the United States and its latter ramifications. This emphasis on trade originates from this idea that we live in a globalized economy and with the United States being a predominate actor within the international community, policies, for instance, that do not support globalize trade potentially harm developing and developed countries who have ties to the U.S.. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share similarities amongst their trade agendas; for example, Clinton’s policies surrounding trade must “work” for the U.S. while Trump 's objective is to renegotiate current and future trade agreements to better suit the U.S.. Therefore, each candidate’s trade proposal must undergo an evaluation of the potential outcomes that derive from each proposal and identify which candidate 's agenda is better suited for the United States and the global aim to liberalize trade. Candidate Hillary Clinton’s trade policies, although minimal in its size, maintains relationships with allied countries and does not harm the United States in trade; while on the other hand, candidate Donald Trump’s trade policies lead to negative ramifications that

Since ancient times, societies have used forms of trade in order to benefit themselves and their communities. From bartering in Ancient Egypt, to the international trading the world has today, trading has found its way into various sectors of modern civilization. The idea of free trade dates back to sixteenth century Spain and it was believed by certain economists to be the reason why certain civilizations flourished more than others. Free trade was an idea The U.S., Canada and Mexico struck gold with when they implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as, “NAFTA”. The use of NAFTA is in America’s best interest because, it benefits U.S. jobs, improves trade relations, promoted specialization of trade.

The recent executive order signed by President Trump stating the U.S. will withdraw from negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal has major implications for “globalization.” Obama’s administration had pushed hard for it because it was essentially an attempt to create a single market for the United States and 11 other countries that border the Pacific Ocean, including Canada, Mexico, and Chile. The TPP’s idea was to make goods flow more freely and cheaply between all partners. All of TPP’s partners represented one third of global trading. The goal for TPP was to maintain U.S. trade dominance in Asia, attempting to ward off China’s growing economic influence. The problem is TPP did not produce jobs or increase wages. The issue is that

Fifteen years ago, the United States entered an agreement with its neighboring countries, Canada and Mexico, to not only increase trade productivity for itself but, allot its sister nations to the north and south the same advantages. Although the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has come with many benefits to our nation, it has also brought in many consequences. The United States is now facing similar challenges with Asian countries through the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The significance of Free Trade Agreements on our economy has sparked a movement and is now currently one of the most widely debated topics in our country.

After reading the first half of the text, I learned about the topics of globalization, economic development, international financial markets, and more. International business is relevant in almost all news articles today. Although I have learned a large measure of information from each chapter, I was mostly interested in chapter five’s topic of international trade which discussed how countries sell, purchase, or exchange goods across national boarders.

The United States of America is the world largest single economy with a lot of trade activities with other nations. The country has traded with other nations for centuries hence it is an important economic partner (Jensen, Quinn & Weymouth, 2015). The country normally has a lot of influence in the world trade since it serves almost all the nations worldwide. In fact, most of the trade policies that affect the whole world have been proposed by the United States of America. Moreover, the country is a superpower hence will also have political influence on the other countries in the world. According to Baier, Bergstrand and Feng (2014), the people in those countries will, therefore, have to adhere to the policies that have been proposed and

Trade is generally known as the buying and selling of goods from one person to another, “international trade would involve at minimum two countries and can go up to however many want to participate in the trade”1 and have something to offer that the there corresponding countries are willing to accept. Trade involves a lot of protection backed by the governments of the countries trading; hence, there are a number of common arguments in favor of protection. These may help certain groups within a country, or even may help a nation achieve some overall goal entirely. When it comes to trade there are numerous arguments put forward, some of which I will be discussing in this paper such as government

The dynamic nature of American political economy is evident in the fundamental changes in its trading policies. We live in an era of global free trade, where the food we eat are imported from Latin America and the furniture we store our Made-In-China shirts are from Asia. We share information over the Internet, exchange goods with people on the other side of the world, and benefit from free trade on a daily basis. As much benefits as free trade has brought to Americans, however, there are downsides to this globalization. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) provides excellent example of these drawbacks.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a multilateral free trade agreement that aims to facilitate economic integration among its twelve member states. Scholars Capling and Ravenhill describe the agreement as “transregional” since it unites various states from five distinct regions: Oceania, North America, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. After eight years of negotiations, the TPP was signed on February 4, 2016 but has yet to be ratified and implemented by its signatories. Besides extensive market access, the agreement focuses heavily on establishing regulatory provisions regarding issues of human rights, labour standards, as well as the environment. As an active agreement that is open to new provisions and amendments, the TPP has the potential to expand and meet the standards of new innovations while embracing prospective members after its ratification. This trade agreement is significant for a multilateral arrangement as the member states considered together, represent over forty percent of the global gross domestic product (GDP) and has the potential to expand as new economies join. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the efficiency of the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a relative multilateral arrangement by exploring the agreement’s prospective socioeconomic impacts on its signatories. Utilizing a comparative approach, I will argue that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through