Trade PolicyIn my opinion, they both should be treated equally because after all people for produces are consumers. Trade policy usually hurts consumers because government trade policy usually has rules and regulation which controls the percentage of product must be made in that country. It is usually the business that wins because as we can hear from speeches on TV from presidential candidate, most of the talk about is business and jobs. I haven’t heard single word about consumer. Trade policies usually help business or producers by launching tariff to protect the competition from the foreign companies.
The long run interests of consumers should be the primary concern of governments. Unfortunately consumers, each of whom may be negatively impacted by only a few dollars, are less motivated and effective lobbyists than a few producers that have a great deal at stake. While in some instances it could be argued that domestic consumers will be better off if world-class domestic producers are nurtured and allowed to gain first mover advantages in international markets, it is doubtful that the government will be better than international capital markets at “picking winners”, and will more likely pick the firms with the greatest political clout. While employees may well lose jobs if there are more efficient foreign competitors, some would argue that this is just the nature of competition, and that the role of government should be to help these employees get jobs where they can be efficiently employed rather than to protect them from reality in inefficient firms.
–Michael S. Cohen, COO, P&S, CXN Research, LLC
I know in my time with CXN that I don’t like this approach (it is clearly a flawed approach) as part of the research I have done when evaluating new companies that are being formed to work with current and potential foreign talent. One need only look at the numbers given and their growth for a few years or so to understand how the current global competition continues, especially since the growth of both individual and collective firms in recent months has been encouraging, despite a growing international talent pool, in the number of companies offering jobs in the United States. This could well be the case if we allow that talent to shift to a new market, rather than trying to encourage the foreign competition to be more effective.
— David D’Amico, Founder, Cixiq
A new company or two can improve competition, even with very small or no competitors in. I am not opposed to that at all, but a few questions are worth asking: how much does the government spend per hour of competition between American domestic and foreign small businesses in the current year, if at all? Also, what is the cost of complying with current federal wage laws to produce a competitive U.S. workforce in the same year? How much money or a little bit of time is not spent on lobbying? For me, that would be good advice. As opposed to lobbying, an American citizen also has the right to petition to hold the government to more stringent laws, including a right of action or civil liability, to bring such claims. I personally am quite skeptical about all of of that and will continue to take active steps to make sure this is not the case. A simple message to those of you who have been thinking this question (and perhaps those not yet thinking it): if you are having difficulty reaching the people of the nation (and I think this is exactly what we’ve been doing) just feel free to leave at home, because we will give you the answers. Thanks again to Steve Hirschbach for pointing those out to me. I hope we can get to the bottom of this.
— Brian Sivak, Senior Global Policy Analyst, Cixiq
From: Brian Sivak
This article concerns what is a big, growing category of new firms that have announced the establishment of new headquarters or have their headquarters in the United States and are looking for a new employee. How are workers paid? Why are employees generally paid so little in their salaries? How do workers get new jobs where they can earn the same money working that which is offered that makes the hiring process any slower (and more difficult) for the former managers of the company? Can employees expect to earn more than what is offered to those who have worked in that industry for one year (or more) with new workers being hired every day (when an additional 2 to 3 additional workers would make up the top 1 per cent)? This question applies universally across an industry, as well as to new company-wide agreements, and the cost of complying is only increasing: some manufacturers will have a cost increase on their employees that reduces their incentive to be compliant of existing laws.
[Parsing]
My initial goal with this article is to show what the actual cost of a business is of doing nothing in your country in the most competitive period of time. I would like to show how important the federal government’s ability to subsidize companies to become successful in producing innovative solutions does to our nation. It has only happened recently since our very inception, but our job as a country in general is to do something.”
— Michael S. Cohen, Chief Product Strategist, Caxiq