The United States have been at the forefront of international trade. However, the changing economic times have resulted in the variation in the volumes of goods and services traded with the US in the international trade. To understand the concept of global trade and making America great again, this paper focuses on how the US compares with other international players like China, Japan, and the European Union. Therefore, the discussion aims to develop qualitative proposals to reinstate the United States at the helm of the international trade, as was the case in the past.
Background of the US International Trade
The early years of the 21st century have been characterized by the perpetual economic crisis in the United States and at the global level. The effects of such hard economic times have been plummeting of the operations of manufacturing industries and the deterioration of the international trade (Scott, Jorgensen, & Hall, 2013). In particular, the perpetual instability of the US dollar is blamed for the continued poor performance of the economy in the international trade. In fact, restoring the US economy to normalcy in the international trade formed the main campaign agenda in the country’s 2012 presidential elections (Bennish, 2012). Stakeholders and the academicians have proposed various policy interventions. For example, the local business community is interested in getting a favorable trade and tax policies (Scott, Jorgensen, & Hall, 2013). Through the favorable tax and policy regimes, the local manufacturers would be able to engage in the international trade. Similarly, the education institutions have been challenged to advance the manufacturing technology in advancing the third industrial revolution.
Comparing the US to China, Japan, and the European Union
Worth appreciating is that the United States, Japan, and the European Union have found common ground in the international trade at the world trade organization (WTO). Through the WTO, the three market economies decided to integrate China into the global economy (Baily & Bosworth, 2014). Accordingly, by elevating and allowing China to play at the international level, the global market leaders were able to gain access to the Chinese market (Baily & Bosworth, 2014). However, one would appreciate that while the intention to incorporate China in the WTO was supported by the different players at the highest level of international trade, then countries approached China differently and independently. The United States took the lead to negotiate the entry of China into the global trade organization (Bennish, 2012). Similarly, the EU and Japan supported the ascension of China to the global level of trade to diversify the market and the goods and services presented. However, unlike Japan, the United States had a well-balanced trade with China and the rest of the global players in trade. Therefore, the organization of the WTO facilitated the expansion and improvement of the international trade through the bilateral negotiations. However, the recent moves to formulate the regional trading blocs by the other players in the international trade have been blamed on diminishing the influence of the US as the globe’s only superpower (Bennish, 2012). Therefore, the rise of China, the EU, and Japan as dominant players in the international market has worked to weaken the trading power of the United States at the international level.
However, with the gradual increase of participation in the international trade by other developed and developing economies, the United States had to lose a large share of the international trade in the recent past. In fact, the main reason for the outcry to reinstate America to its greatness has been for the lost glory in international trade to other players on the international front (Baily & Bosworth, 2014). Although the debate on how to make the country great again has been widely deliberated, especially at the political front. The United States’ international trade requires both the demand and supply interventions to overcome the reduced capacity in manufacturing and supply of the trading partners.
However, one could be concerned with the most practical ways by which the United States could be reinstated to the pride of becoming the leader in international trade. Firstly, the internal trade policies by the government should be re-evaluated to make the manufacturers incur less in the form of import and export duties in the purchase of raw materials (Huey, 2016). Secondly, by reducing the trade barriers, the country could attract more investment from both local and international investors. Through the increased production, the country would have enough to supply to the international markets (Huey, 2016). Thirdly, the government could consider addressing and possibly abolishing the focus on labor and environmental standards, which makes trading challenging, especially with countries with no regard for such standards.
In conclusion, the governments should abolish the rules on “Buy American” as has been imposed on state agencies hence limiting the interaction of the agencies with foreign suppliers. Finally, the federal government should take legal action against the countries perpetuating property rights theft (Huey, 2016). Through such legal actions, the domestic invention and innovation could be safeguarded to harness the international trade.
Baily, M. N., & Bosworth, B. P. (2014). US Manufacturing: Understanding Its Past and Its Potential Future. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 3-25.
Bennish, S. (2012). Bold plan needed to revive American industry. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/bold-plan-needed-to-revive-american-industry/nSWPZ/
Huey, C. (2016). Free Trade: 10 Ways to Make America Great Again. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from https://www.electionforum.org/economics/free-trade-10-ways-make-america-great/
Scott, R., Jorgensen, H., & Hall, D. (2013). Reducing U.S. trade deficits will generate a manufacturing-based recovery for the United States and Ohio: Ending currency manipulation by China and others is the place to start. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://www.epi.org/publication/bp351-trade-deficit-currency-manipulation/