Global Econ Barry Take Home 2

8/18/2019 Global Econ Barry Take Home 2

1/8

Robert JonesGlobal Econ/BusinessProfessor Barry4/15/15

Take Home Test 2

1. T e Trans!Pacific Tra"e Partners i# is a u$e tra"e a$reement t at is in t e #rocess of

bein$ com#lete. T e Trans!Pacific Tra"e Partners i# is e%#ecte" to $o&ern rou$ ly 4' #ercent of

(.).*s im#orts an" e%#orts+ , ic is #retty incre"ible. T e tra"e a$reement is bet,een 12

"ifferent countries inclu"in$ t e (nite" )tates+ -ana"a+ ustralia+ - ile+ Brunei+ Ja#an+ e%ico+

alaysia+ Peru+ )in$a#ore+ 0e, ealan"+ an" ietnam. T is a$reement as been in t e makin$

for o&er a "eca"e no, but se&eral issues se&eral countries a&e ,it t e terms are still kee#in$

t e a$reement from bein$ effecti&e. T is lar$e free tra"e a$reement as t e intention to eliminate

tariffs on $oo"s an" ser&ices+ eliminate non!tariff barriers an" balance a si$nificant amount of

tra"e re$ulations currently in #lace 3 e#illis . T is ne, free tra"e a$reement $oes beyon" 6ust

tra"itional as#ects of tra"e7 it "eals 8,it e&eryt in$ from financial ser&ices to

telecommunications to sanitary stan"ar"s for foo"9 3 e#illis T is free tra"e a$reement

a""resses tariffs+ tra"e barriers+ an" current re$ulations amon$ t e #artici#atin$ countries ,it

t e intention to en ance tra"e+ in&estment+ an" #romote economic $ro,t . T e :ffice of t e

(nite" )tates Tra"e Re#resentati&e ,ebsite lists t e fi&e key features of t e a$reement+ , ic

inclu"e; 1. -om#re ensi&e market access 2. fully re$ional a$reement


2/8

21st century tra"e a$reement t at ,ill boost (.). economic $ro,t + su##ort merican 6obs+ an"

$ro, a"e!in! merica e%#orts to some of t e most "ynamic an" fastest $ro,in$ countries in t e

,orl".9 =t is >uite ob&ious t at t e (nite" )tates $o&ernment is for t e Trans!Pacific Tra"e

Partners i# an" for $oo" reason. T e Trans!Pacific Tra"e Partners i# embo"ies t e (nite"

)tate*s economic i"eals an" ,ill 8not only #ro&i"e market access for American goods and

services exports, but also set high-standard rules for trade, and address vital 21st-century

issues within the global economy.” (ustr.gov) The theory of free trade promotes trade of

goods/services without tariffs, taxes, trade barriers, and unregulated markets. The

opposite of this is the theory of protectionism, which attempts to restrain trade with

tariffs, taxes, trade barriers, and overall more regulation of markets.

The pros and cons of this agreement are all relative to opinions but, the Pros of

this will be obvious less economic regulation (lifting of tariffs, trade regulations, etc.),

overall economic growth, American job growth, an increase in American exports,

efficient pricing of goods and services, economic interdependence between nations, and

environmental protection The Cons of this agreement are subject to opinion, but could be

seen as less government/economic regulation, big business growth rather than overall

business growth, intellectual property safety, economic inequality, increased competition,

possible job loss. The pros and cons are contradictory; the pros are coming from a point

of view that is for the agreement while the cons are coming from a point of view that is

against the agreement. I believe the article I quoted earlier from The Washington Post

titled “Everything you need to know about the Trans Pacific Agreement” by Lydia


3/8

Depillis does a great job of stating who will win and who will lose from this agreement

when she says “In the aggregate it should make you richer: The Peterson Institute for

International Economics estimates the U.S. will realize $78 billion more per year under

its assumption about what the TPP will include, and $267 billion annually if free trade is

expanded to the rest of the Asia-Pacific region.” She then goes to state that the gains will

not be absolutely evenly distributed where “If you’re an investor or a U.S. business

looking for foreign investment, or a small business looking to sell stuff overseas, the

news is pretty great. If you have a job making cars or airplanes, you might have reason to

worry.” So the winners can be seen as large corporation and even small businesses

looking to import and export, but the losers could be some of the lower level employees

at large industrial corporations who could possibly see a decrease in pay.

I am personally for this agreement, I believe that less trade regulation is great for

economic growth, and with this specific agreement the American people and economy

are only going to see benefit because the free trade is going to allow the markets to have

the most efficient prices for goods and services, which will not allow for the exploitation

in pricing of goods and services making society better off. This agreement is going to

enhance globalization and make nations economically interdependent, which will make

for peaceful relations between previously opposing nations. This agreement is not only

going to make big businesses flourish, but also going to make small businesses flourish,

which will increase job opportunities. I think that it says something if the Obama

administration is backing this free trade agreement when it is one that embodies


4/8

traditional Republican values, I truly believe this is could be a great thing for the United

States and the world as a whole.

2. The United States has many trade sanctions with a plethora of countries around

the world so I would like to go in depth on a few of the larger ones in order to fit the

pa#er re>uirements.

T e first country to talk about t at t e (.). as tra"e/in&estment sanctions on is =ran.

T ese sanctions are a result of =ran*s illicit nuclear acti&ities+ an" because of t is t e sanctions

a&e a lot to "o ,it limitin$ military #ro$ress of t e nation. = am $ettin$ t is information from

t e (.). e#artment of )tate*s ,ebsite an" am tryin$ to sum u# t e information $i&en t e

e%treme amount of it. T e sanctions are "esi$ne" to 8 31 to block t e transfer of ,ea#ons+

com#onents+ tec nolo$y+ an" "ual!use items to =ran*s #ro ibite" nuclear an" missile #ro$rams7

32 to tar$et select sectors of t e =ranian economy rele&ant to its #roliferation acti&ities7 an" 3<

to in"uce =ran to en$a$e constructi&ely+ t rou$ "iscussions ,it t e (nite" )tates+ - ina+

?rance+ Germany+ t e (nite" @in$"om+ an" Russia9. T e (nite" )tates also "oes not allo, any

=ranian financial institutions to "irectly access t e (nite" )tates financial system+ but t e

#roblem is t at =ran can access it in"irectly t rou$ ot er countries. s = mentione" #re&iously+

t ese sanctions are a result of =ran*s continuin$ acti&ities to en ance t eir nuclear/military #o,er.

T e ma6ority of t e ,orl" as felt t e effect of t ese sanction because ot er countries a&e similar

sanctions+ =ran branc es out to ot er countries in an attem#t to $o aroun" t em an" access t e

economies t ey are not allo,e" to+ an" sim#ly because of o, $lobaliAe" t e ,orl" is. T e

ob&ious ,inners of t is are t e (nite" )tates an" ot er countries ,it t e same sanctions on =ran+

alon$ ,it countries t at are in o##osition to =ran. T e losers are ob&iously =ran an" t ose


5/8

countries attem#tin$ to assist =ran in its moti&es to increase t eir nuclear an" military acti&ity+

an" countries economies t at =ran is usin$ to in"irectly access t e (.). economy.

T e secon" country = ,oul" like to e%amine t at T e (.). as tra"e sanctions on is 0ort

@orea+ $i&en o, e%treme t e sanctions are. en 0ort @orea attacke" )out @orea in t e

1C5'*s t e (nite" )tates im#ose" a near total economic embar$o on 0ort @orea. T e (nite"

)tate*s economic interaction ,it 0ort @orea is basically non!e%istent $i&en o, e%treme

0ort @orea is as a nation7 ,e "o not ,ant to associate ,it t em. 8 ost forms of (.).

economic assistance+ ot er t an #urely umanitarian assistance+ are #ro ibite". 0ort @orea as

at times e%#erience" #erio"s of famine+ an" t e (nite" )tates as #ro&i"e" foo" ai".9 3state.$o&T e (.). is only intereste" in assistin$ t ose t at are feelin$ t e affects of t e "ictatin$ 0ort

@orean $o&ernment an" a&e no ,ay of sa&in$ t emsel&es. at t e 0ort @orean $o&ernment

is $oin$ to its #eo#le is a,ful+ an" t ey are t e ob&ious losers of t is situation. T e (nite" )tates

is t e ,inner of t is situation because ,e are not allo,in$ t e 0ort @orean $o&ernment to

im#ose on ot er countries an" ,i"en t eir control.

T e last country = ,oul" like to "iscuss re$ar"in$ tra"e sanctions is )yria. )yria is sub6ect

to economic sanctions by t e (nite" )tates "ue to t e on$oin$ internal conflict in )yria an" t e

umanitarian conflict t at is #resent. T e (nite" )tates as a serious concern for t e o##resse"

citiAens sufferin$ from on$oin$ &iolence , ere t ey are 8#ro&i"in$ assistance to el# internally

"is#lace" #ersons an" refu$ees fleein$ )yria.9 3state.$o& )yria as been sub6ect to (.).

tra"e/economic sanction since 2' '4 un"er t e )yria ccountability ct+ , ic #ro ibits or

restricts t e e%#ort an" re!e%#ort of most (.). #ro"ucts to )yria. ?ollo,in$ t is+ in 2''D+ t e

(.). 8#ro ibite" t e e%#ort of (.). ser&ices to )yrian an" banne" (.). #ersons from in&ol&ement

in t e )yrian #etroleum sector+ inclu"in$ a #ro ibition on im#ortin$ )yrian #etroleum #ro"ucts.9


6/8


7/8

"isru#tion in t e corn an" $rain tra"e. lso - ina as been increasin$ its "omestic a$ricultural

su##ort alon$ ,it t e fact t at t ey >uestione" an" t en si$nificantly "ecrease" t e im#orts of

beef #oultry an" #ork from t e (nite" )tates.


8/8

orks -ite"

! "- ina!T e (nite" )tates Tra"e Re#resentati&e. China +The United States Trade Representative . (nite" )tates Go&ernment. eb. 2' #r. 2'15.

F tt#s;//ustr.$o&/sites/"efault/files/2'14 2'0TE 2'Re#ort 2'on 2'?TB 2'- ina.#"f .

! ePillis+ Iy"ia. E&eryt in$ ou 0ee" to @no, about t e Trans Pacific Partners i#. K Washington Post . T e as in$ton Post+ 1< ec. 2'1

Global Econ Barry Take Home 2

Documents

Transcript of Global Econ Barry Take Home 2