(1)on page 3, the article mentions "... businesses and governments ... need to reignite the spark of trade to fuel economic growth." From what you learned in ch7, comment on how trade could fuel economic growth.

(2)On page 3, the article mentions "... Americans fear trade will lower wages." Relate to ch5 learning, do you think so too? Use what you learned to explain.

(3)Continue with part (2), if there was such a concern, what should US do to address this problem? You should be able to find some answers in the rest of the case study.

"National Competitiveness: the case for trade and why American leaders need to make it"

Trade is in trouble in U.S. politics. Both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have blamed U.S. trade agreements for loss of jobs and a rash of economic ills. President Barack Obama squandered opportunity by failing to make the case for trade for his first five years in office; now the president's window for passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is closing. Democratic support for trade in Congress has withered over the years, and now more Republicans in Congress are hesitating, too.

The loss of American trade leadership could hardly come at a worse time. In an era when monetary policy seems to have been stretched to the limit, and fiscal policies are constrained by debt and reluctance to spend, businesses and governments around the world need to reignite the spark of trade to fuel economic growth.

When I meet businesspeople and journalists around the world, they ask the same questions about U.S. trade policy and where it's heading. Here's what they ask me and what I tell them.

What do Americans think about trade?

Despite the negative political climate, many polls show voters support trade. For instance, a recent poll revealed that 55% of Americans think free trade is good, with 38% considering it bad. Support actually increased by seven points since last December, even amid anti-trade rhetoric in the election campaign.

A new survey from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs reveals that 60% of Americans support the negotiations for trans-Pacific trade, down slightly from 2015. In October of last year, Gallup found that only 18% said leaving the North American FTA (NAFTA) and Central American FTA (CAFTA) would be very effective in helping the U.S. economy.

Nevertheless, polls also reveal that Americans fear trade will lower wages. Most Americans also say they would be willing to pay a little more to buy goods produced in the U.S. These data suggest the public sees both benefits and costs to trade; attitudes are muddled.

This uncertainty calls for political leadership. Until recently, when President Obama began speaking up for TPP, his administration had drifted on trade. It has not defended NAFTA, allowing trade opponents to conduct a one-sided debate. Moreover, businesses have done a poor job explaining to employees how trade contributes to job creation and better pay. And the workers who have lost out to trade competition are more visible, concentrated in specific communities, and are understandably frustrated and vocal. Government policies to help workers adjust have failed them.

What about the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

The political currents are threatening to sink the TPP. It's a comprehensive free-trade agreement that combines new partnersJapan, Vietnam, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Bruneiin a modernized arrangement with existing trade partners Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Singapore.

The TPP would eliminate almost all barriers to trade over time. It would also establish rules for economic activities that are typically beyond the scope of trade deals negotiated by other countriesactivities such as intellectual property, e-commerce, government procurement, and customs and delivery services. Those are particularly important for America's cutting-edge economy. The U.S. already exports more than $700 billion in services, contributing to about a $230 billion surplus, so new openings in that sector will help competitive U.S. firms. In addition, new rules for anti-corruption, transparency, enforcement of environmental agreements, and core labor standards would help the U.S. to compete and to build rule-of-law systems internationally.

TPP's high quality rules and new competition will also help economic reformers across the Pacific, from an aging Japan that needs structural changes for its economy to grow, to a rising Vietnam that needs an international legal framework to develop further. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will also attract other countries to its system of high standards for openness; South Korea and some Southeast Asian nations have expressed an interest in joining the TPP if the U.S. enacts it.

TPP is also a practical statement of the U.S. economic and security commitment to the Asia-Pacific. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong explained to Americans recently that U.S. action on TPP will be read in the region as "a litmus test of your credibility." Leaders in Australia and Japan and across Asia have made similar arguments. If the U.S. fails to act on an agreement that is in America's interests, Pacific partners will doubt U.S. steadfastness or even the U.S. political system's ability to act in America's self-interest. They will see it as a signal of disengagement. That failure will have implications for other critical topics on which the U.S. seeks supportfor example, freedom of navigation, cybersecurity, nuclear nonproliferation, environmental accords, human rights, and democracy.

Can the TPP be passed after the presidential election during Congress' "lame duck" session?

Passage of the TPP during the lame duck session is a long shot. Still, President Obama needs to take steps now to keep open the possibility.

Republican members supported and provided most of the votes for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) in 2015. That legislation authorized the White House to negotiate free-trade agreements such as the TPP, according to the specified procedures and subject to an up-or-down Congressional vote, without amendment. Even so, Republican leaders probably do not have the votes to pass the TPP now.Moreover, the Senate Republican leadership will have little incentive to push the TPP if a newly-elected President Clinton opposes it, especially if Republicans lose their majority in the Senate.

There is also the practical problem of time. TPA procedures require a host of steps that would be difficult to take in the few weeks available in the "lame duck" session.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration should be working to resolve the concerns raised by members of Congress who could be TPP supporters. Such supplementary negotiations to win votes on trade agreements are commonplace. "Fixes" can be pursued through the implementing legislation, side agreements with trading partners, or other arrangements. The administration needs to demonstrate attention to concerns of would-be supportersand remove excuses for inaction.

Longer term, the travails of the Trans-Pacific Partnership underscore the critical need for presidential administrations to negotiate and close trade deals with an eye toward timing and congressional support. The Obama administration thought it could conclude TPP negotiations and present it to Congress for a vote while skipping Trade Promotion Authority. President Obama learned too late that Congress would insist on playing its role in authorizing negotiations with specific objectives. Congress gave the president TPA in 2015, and the supporters would have been able to pass TPP that year. If the president had acted just a year earlier, the U.S. would have enacted the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Have America's free-trade agreements helped the U.S. economy?

The U.S. has free-trade agreements with 20 countries that account for nearly half of U.S. exports. In the first five years after the U.S. has concluded these agreements, U.S. exports have on average increased three times as rapidly as export growth globally. With these partners, the U.S. runs a trade surplus for manufactured goods. More than 11 million U.S. workers and about 1 million farmers rely on exports. U.S. manufacturing workers whose jobs depend on exports earn on average 18% more than other workers.

The economic logic for these deals is strong: U.S. trade barriers are already relatively low, so the U.S. gains more once a free-trade agreement removes other countries' obstacles. And there's room to grow. America's existing free-trade partners account for just 10% of the global economy.

On the import side, trade deals assist low and middle income American families by lowering the prices of clothes, food, toys, school supplies, and appliances. Lower-cost imports help companies and workers, too. About 60% of U.S. imports are for intermediate goods that lower the expenses and improve the quality of U.S. manufacturing. For example, lower-cost steel makes U.S. automakers more competitive.

Furthermore, trade is not a zero-sum exchange. Many Americans would like to help developing economies grow, especially if their higher incomes and stronger global supply chains boost U.S. sales and production.

The opponents of trade are misleading people: a less open and less competitive U.S. will be poorer, have fewer resources to address our challenges, and will offer families less choice.

What about the decline in U.S. manufacturing?

U.S. manufacturing has adapted and grown, not declined. Between 1993-2013, the value of U.S. manufacturing rose about 60%. Most economists believe that technology, innovation, and consumer tastes are more significant sources of change than is trade.

To compete, U.S. companies have had to boost productivity with new technologies and supply chains, while offering new products. As a result, some workers have lost jobs. The U.S. should help people to find new work and gain new skills.

How would you help workers adjust to trade competition and job losses?

The number one aim should be to get people back into jobs, not just into training programs. Jobs are the best way to learn skills. Work is also important to personal dignity and a sense of providing for your family and contributing to your community.

Until recently, the federal government spent about $18 billion a year on 47 separate training programs, run by 9 different federal agencies. The Government Accounting Office found that only a small number of the programs were thoroughly evaluated. The few reviews revealed small, inconclusive, or short-term effectiveness. Congress recently enacted a consolidation of some programs, but much more needs to be done.

The United States should initiate a competition in policy innovation to help people work. We should run pilots, test performance, and then either build on the experience or end the project. There are better ways to inform people about available jobs and to assist with relocation costs. The U.S. also needs education and skills training recognized through certification. Various educational institutions have capabilities to match training with the competitive skills needed by businesses and communities.

There should also be more financial support for workers in transition. For example, an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit could help people who work, but earn too little. The federal government could also try making up a portion of the difference in wagesup to a certain amount, for a limited periodfor displaced workers who find a new job at a lower wage. Cutting taxes on wages would help, too.

These are responsible ways to help American workers adapt to a changing economy. Blocking trade is not.

What should business be doing?

In the past, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and other business groups have organized support for Congressional trade votes. CEOs and top executives visited Capitol Hill to explain the importance of trade agreements. Invitations to visit plants and operations in their districts helped members of Congress to see and hear directly why trade matters.

These activities are no longer enough. Even though poll numbers suggest public opinion on trade is up for grabs, the new political and media conventional wisdom is that trade deals are finished. If these defeatist attitudes win out, U.S. economic, foreign, and security policies will suffer. Other countries will press for trade advantages while the U.S. retreatsor worse, raises new barriers.In trade policy politics, if the U.S. is not on "offense"pushing to open marketsthe U.S. will be reactively resisting special interests' campaigns to block imports.

Businesses and their workers need to recognize their self-interest in trade. When I was U.S. Trade Representative, I could never understand why the Boeing aerospace union and workers opposed trade when the vast majority of Boeing's production was exported. Tech companies rarely weighed in for free trade. I could never get the two Congresswomen from Silicon Valley to vote for tradeand neither has Mike Froman, the current USTReven though an open, global economy is the lifeblood of the tech industry.

To regain momentum on trade, individual businesses, helped by their associations, will have to explain to employees and suppliers how trade helps their companies, supports jobs, and contributes to more resilient communities.

What should we expect from the next presidential administration?

Unless political attitudes shift, the prospects for new trade openings in 2017 are bleak. Donald Trump threatens to raise tariffs to rates the U.S. has not charged since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Hillary Clinton is trying to please protectionists, too.

The next president and congressional leaders will need a new political strategy for trade. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, is a free trader who has shown a willingness to urge his colleagues to vote for trade. President Obama said that the United Kingdom would go to "the back of the queue" in terms of negotiating new trade deals after voting to leave the European Union. However, a new president could decide that launching free trade negotiations with Great Britain is a good way to regain the offensive. Many in Congress find the idea of a U.S.-UK trade pact appealing.Even members of Congress who usually line up with unions and anti-trade lobbies might conclude that Britain's labor and environmental standards are acceptable.

Then again, much depends on whether the business community pushes the incoming president and Congress to fight for trade. Trade is in trouble in U.S. politics. It's time for business and political leaders to rally support for open markets. The future economic securityof people and the countrydepends on it.