2 ms·

Arguably, Congress made/authorized the trade deals which were designed to move manufacturing over seas. There was a theory that US firms would sell higher end

by lumost 5y ago

Arguably, Congress made/authorized the trade deals which were designed to move manufacturing over seas. There was a theory that US firms would sell higher end goods and services to developing nations who did the manufacturing. Treaties were made with countries that occasionally had asymmetric tariffs in favor of the developing nations (Columbia had such a deal) based on this theory. While debatable, the belief now is that the majority of those service jobs were actually worse than the old manufacturing jobs which provided stable 9-5 employment, benefits, and a career path. There is further concern that trading partners who took up the manufacturing side of things are now developing and exporting the supposedly advanced services and technology companies the "knowledge economy" was meant to provide (e.g. TikTok). In the case of some industries like semiconductor manufacturing it's also posing existential national security questions.

crazygringo 5y ago
I haven't heard of this so I'd like to learn more. Do you have some sources you can point me to? I've studied economics and history quite a lot and have never heard of the idea that Congress intended to migrate manufacturing jobs to service jobs, or that the US would intentionally give another country an advantage in order to achieve this. What is the name of the Columbia deal you're referring to? And is there any specific time period or administration you're describing? Or economists whose views provided the theoretical underpinning of why shifting from manufacturing to services would be desirable national policy?
- lumost 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history#1980s_to_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_histor... Has a good 5 paragraph summary of US Trade policy and its intentions from the 1980s to present. I've found the Perot, Bush, Clinton presidential debate of 1992 to be the most insightful as to the the state of public discourse on trade intentions at the end of the cold war. The topic of one-way trade deals featured prominently in this debate, the proposed solution that Clinton pitched was the "Knowledge Economy". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg7-QJrJZV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg7-QJrJZV0 For the Columbia free trade deal, this source provides useful context on the outstanding tariff levels prior to the most recent Free Trade deal. > Before the U.S.-Colombia FTA entered into force, the U.S. average tariff on Colombian goods was 3%, while Colombia's average tariff on U.S. goods was 12.5%. Prior to the agreement, about 90% of U.S. imports from Colombia came into the country duty-free under trade preference programs or through normal trade relations. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34470.html#:~:text=Before%20the%20U.S.%2DColombia%20FTA%20entered%20into%20force%2C%20the%20U.S.,or%20through%20normal%20trade%20relations https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34470.html#:~:text=....
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    Thanks, that's helpful. Across all those sources, though, I can't find anything indicating that deindustrialization was a goal. Even the Wikipedia article which has a whole section on it seems to present it as a side effect, while Clinton's talk about the "knowledge economy" is framed as it being an area of economic opportunity. And I found the debate transcript [1] (it was a famous one for the "giant sucking sound"!) -- and Bush is arguing for increased exports (which means greater US manufacturing), while Clinton is explicitly arguing that other countries need to be as open to trade as we are. So if anything, Bush appears to be pro-manufacturing, and Clinton is against one-way trade deals. And your Colombia example would show that then -- if it was a one-way trade deal, it's to benefit American manufacturers rather than consumers. So I still don't see where a shifting employment away from manufacturing was a goal anywhere. Is there something else I'm missing? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/16/us/the-1992-campaign-transcript-of-2d-tv-debate-between-bush-clinton-and-perot.html https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/16/us/the-1992-campaign-tran...

by lumost 5y ago

crazygringo 5y ago

I haven't heard of this so I'd like to learn more. Do you have some sources you can point me to? I've studied economics and history quite a lot and have never heard of the idea that Congress intended to migrate manufacturing jobs to service jobs, or that the US would intentionally give another country an advantage in order to achieve this. What is the name of the Columbia deal you're referring to? And is there any specific time period or administration you're describing? Or economists whose views provided the theoretical underpinning of why shifting from manufacturing to services would be desirable national policy?

lumost 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history#1980s_to_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_histor... Has a good 5 paragraph summary of US Trade policy and its intentions from the 1980s to present. I've found the Perot, Bush, Clinton presidential debate of 1992 to be the most insightful as to the the state of public discourse on trade intentions at the end of the cold war. The topic of one-way trade deals featured prominently in this debate, the proposed solution that Clinton pitched was the "Knowledge Economy". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg7-QJrJZV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg7-QJrJZV0 For the Columbia free trade deal, this source provides useful context on the outstanding tariff levels prior to the most recent Free Trade deal. > Before the U.S.-Colombia FTA entered into force, the U.S. average tariff on Colombian goods was 3%, while Colombia's average tariff on U.S. goods was 12.5%. Prior to the agreement, about 90% of U.S. imports from Colombia came into the country duty-free under trade preference programs or through normal trade relations. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34470.html#:~:text=Before%20the%20U.S.%2DColombia%20FTA%20entered%20into%20force%2C%20the%20U.S.,or%20through%20normal%20trade%20relations https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34470.html#:~:text=....
- crazygringo 5y ago
  Thanks, that's helpful. Across all those sources, though, I can't find anything indicating that deindustrialization was a goal. Even the Wikipedia article which has a whole section on it seems to present it as a side effect, while Clinton's talk about the "knowledge economy" is framed as it being an area of economic opportunity. And I found the debate transcript [1] (it was a famous one for the "giant sucking sound"!) -- and Bush is arguing for increased exports (which means greater US manufacturing), while Clinton is explicitly arguing that other countries need to be as open to trade as we are. So if anything, Bush appears to be pro-manufacturing, and Clinton is against one-way trade deals. And your Colombia example would show that then -- if it was a one-way trade deal, it's to benefit American manufacturers rather than consumers. So I still don't see where a shifting employment away from manufacturing was a goal anywhere. Is there something else I'm missing? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/16/us/the-1992-campaign-transcript-of-2d-tv-debate-between-bush-clinton-and-perot.html https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/16/us/the-1992-campaign-tran...