Monthly Archives: September 2017

COMM 101

NAFTA: The Scapegoat for the USA’s Trade Deficits

“Trade deficit is an economic measure of international trade in which a country’s imports exceeds its exports. A trade deficit represents an outflow of domestic currency to foreign markets.”

-Investopedia

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-mexico-trade-deficit/

The Bloomberg article “Trump Hates Trade Deficits, But Which Ones Really Matter?” written by Thomas Black and Dave Merrill discusses the United States of America’s various trade deficits. It suggests that renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), an agreement among North America that allows for free trade within the countries, should not be on President Trump’s agenda due to more pressing and impactful trade deficits with other countries.

China is the United States’ top trading partner, and the two nations traded a total of $578.6 billion USD in 2016. The trade deficit, which is 60 points (80% for China to 20% for the USA), is the largest of all the United States’ trade deficits. Due to the large sum of total trades, that means the United States of America imported $347 billion USD more from China than they exported to them.

Upon  my own further analysis, the total trade deficit from the two other NAFTA countries, Mexico and Canada, combined was found to be around 4.7 times less than the trade deficit with China alone (the combined trade deficit of the two North American countries is $73.9 billion USD). After assessing this information, the logical conclusion the Trump administration should reach is to focus less on renegotiating NAFTA and more on mitigating the great trade deficit with China.

The Canadian economy would be greatly affected by a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and it is therefore important to make the case for its relatively smaller impact on the US economy and understand whether the Trump’s insistence on renegotiating it is indeed justified. After comparing numbers, it is easy to see that the United States’ biggest worry concerning trade should be its trade with China, as comparatively, the trade deficits with Mexico and Canada are quite small.

 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-mexico-trade-deficit/

Although the USA is not a corporation, I believe Stakeholder Theory can still be in some ways applied to this (this is not the first time Stakeholder Theory has been applied as such (Neaves, 2002)). As the President of the United States, Trump has a duty to many groups. His decisions, which sometimes appear to be biased and ignorant of hard facts, has a vast impact on many people. He must put the well-being of his citizens, among others, over those of his own interests.

 

Word Count: 409

Bibliography:

Amadeo, K. (n.d.). What Are the Causes and Effects of a Trade Deficit? Retrieved September 25, 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-definition-causes-effects-role-in-bop-3305898

Black, T., & Merrill, D. (2017, February 16). Trump Hates Trade Deficits, But Which    Ones    Really Matter? Retrieved September 25, 2017, from      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-mexico-trade-deficit/

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, & N. (2008, April 01). North American Free Trade Agreement. Retrieved September 25, 2017, from http://www.naftanow.org/

Momoh, O. (2017, September 07). Trade Deficit. Retrieved September 25, 2017, from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade_deficit.asp#ixzz4tkPLhyLv

Neaves, Guy (2002). “The Stakeholder Perspective”. In Teichler, Ulrich; Enders, J.; Fulton,       Oliver. Higher Education in a Globalising World. p. 33. ISBN 1402008643.

What is stakeholder theory? definition and meaning. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2017, from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/stakeholder-theory.html

Standard
COMM 101, Uncategorized

Impact vs. Intention: Do the ends justify the means?

The success of the North American business sector can be in-part credited to the innovations produced by North American companies. However, an important fact that can be overlooked is that a large percentage of the people responsible for these innovations are immigrants. In fact, the National Science Foundation (2014) estimates that around 49% of all U.S. postdoctoral researchers in important areas such as the STEM sector are immigrants[1]. Since immigrants represent a large portion of American scientists and engineers, big technology companies are reluctant to risk the future of their corporations in the face of President Trump’s immigration ban.

According to a recent article published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR), countless tech companies have lobbied and taken legal action against Trump’s ban, detailing the devastating effect such a law would have on their respective businesses[2]. Even though lobbying against Trump’s ban is honorable, the author of the article notes that these influential tech companies seem to only be concerned with how the limited access to immigrant talent will impact their ability to produce new technology and not with the human rights issues involved (Latonero, 2017).

The ethical issue lies in the fact that these tech companies have made an effort to remove the ban in order to best represent their interests, yet they do so under the guise of social awareness. The brief that the 162 tech companies published, which states that the ban “hinders the ability of American companies to attract talented employees” (International Refugee Assistance Project, 2017), exhibits a lack of language regarding the non-business reasons for opposition. This indicates that they do not care about the fate of refugees. Although some companies have issued vague statements in favor of welcoming refugees, their overall response has been generally passive and performative.

Regardless of whether the result of the companies’ lobbying can ultimately help refugees, it is unacceptable to feign humanity when the only reason these companies are taking a stand is for their own benefit. Nevertheless, should the potential impact of their actions—a verified rejection of Trump’s ban—be partially credited to these technology companies if that is to happen? Does intention matter if the result is positive, regardless of unethical praxis?

Word count: 364 words

 

 

[1] Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. (n.d.). National Science Foundation. Retrieved September 12, 2017,      from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-5/c5s3.htm

[2] Latonero, M. (2017, May 16). Tech Companies Should Speak Up for Refugees, Not Only High-Skilled     Immigrants. Retrieved September 12, 2017, from                                                                                                                 https://hbr.org/2017/05/tech-companies-should-speak-up-for-refugees-not-only-high-skilled-immigrants

[3] Drange, Matt. “Nearly 100 Tech Companies Join Forces In Court To Oppose Donald Trump’s Immigration Ban.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 6 Feb. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2017/02/06/nearly-100-tech-companies-join-forces-to-oppose-donald-trumps-immigration-ban/.

 

Standard