International trade, and more speciIically Iree trade, is a huge part oI our everyday liIe.

In
2009, we traded 3 Trillion dollars with the rest oI the world. This is approximately 20 oI our
GDP. (Rourke-Boyer 2010) Compared to other times in our history, this amount oI trading is
astronomical. Through this rapid increase in trade, 'the United States has become the central
player in in the global market, serving as a principle consumer and producer oI goods and
services Ilowing around the world. This trade has in turn bolstered U.S. investment, jobs,
economic growth, and prosperity. (Markheim 2009) We need trade is no many areas oI our liIe
today; it is almost impossible to live without it.

Trade has many beneIits. As was aptly said by Daniel Griswold, 'When we prosper we
trade; when we trade, we prosper. Trade helped put America on top and it keeps us there. In Iact,
since 1960, American`s purchasing power has increased $1,000 dollars annually due to Ireer
trade. (Litan 2000) The proponents oI trade are many: 5 oI them have very succinct statements as
to how important trade is. Brian Riley says in his article, 'A prescription Ior export growth and
economic recovery says, 'Countries with the lowest trade barriers also have the world`s Iastest-
growing economies. From Gerald O`Driscoll, 'The Iree exchange oI goods builds wealth and
prosperity Ior all concerned. As stated by Edward Younkins in 2002, 'The case Ior Iree trade is
the case Ior lower prices, higher quality goods, economic growth, and competition. Derek
Scissors says, 'Bilateral trade and investment brings diverse and considerable gains to both
sides. And the organization he works Ior, the Heritage Ioundation, stated in 2010, 'The Iree
exchange oI goods and services in the marketplace builds wealth Ior all who participate,
improving prosperity Ior the American people. Clearly, there is a large academic consensus as
to the importance and valuable potential oI both trade and, more speciIically, Iree trade. This is
echoed by copious quotations Irom Adam Smith in 1776, Robert Lawrence in 1997, Larry
Wortzel in 2005, Tyler Cowen in 2008, and Scott Lincicome in 2011.

So Iar, all oI these people have spoken on the economic beneIits oI Iree trade. There is
much to be gained, though, in the relational arena as well. In Iact, 'Free trade would also
strengthen United States global leadership. and serve broader United States national
interests. (Elliot 2009) Why is this? Because, to quote Daniel Griswold, 'Free trade embodies
a policy oI hope rather than Iear. And lastly Irom David Boaz, 'The positive-sum character oI
trade is the very Ioundation oI the liberal world order, the underpinning oI expanding trade,
international harmony, and peace. The reason that trade yields closer relations is because,
Iirstly, trade causes substantial increases in Human rights which, in turn, increases the
democratic Ilair oI nations and, secondly, because increased trade means that the stakes oI war
are largely increased. When we have increased trade with nations, we have increased relations.
These are, most oI the time, highly beneIicial to America.

However, not all trade is legal trade. In 2010 the United States lost over 250 billion
dollars to intellectual property violations. (Chamber oI Commerce 2009) The impacts, though,
can be much better quantiIied by the numbers Irom the International CounterIeiting Coalition in
2011 that read, 'CounterIeiting costs U.S. businesses $200 billion to $250 billion annually.
CounterIeit merchandise is directly responsible Ior the loss oI more than 750,000 American jobs.
Approximately 5-7 oI the world trade is in counterIeit goods. U.S. companies suIIer $9
billion in trade losses due to international copyright piracy alone. Now, intellectual property
violations occur when people or organizations take another`s ideas and market them Ior their
own value. This problem is rampant in both China and India. (China Business Review 2006)
(Congressional Research Service 2007) As a result, this is oIten one oI the main issues when
United States, Indian, and Chinese diplomats discuss increased trade.

Trade, much like power, is both an objective and a weapon. (Nye 2008) We constantly
seek to increase our abilities to trade with other nations. At the same time, though, we oIten seek
to punish or coerce other nations by restricting their abilities to trade with us. This can come
through sanctions, tariIIs, increased quotas, saIety regulations, etc. Most oI these tend to both
hurt us as well as them. (Eiras 2003) (Sirico 1998) However, that is not my point. My point is
that the allowance or restriction oI trade is a weapon that has Iar reaching consequences Ior both
the country that imposes them and the country at which they are aimed. This normally takes the
Iorm oI decreased relations and human rights. (Lukas 1998*) (Dorn 1996*) Take, Ior example,
the cases oI China. Stopping or slowing trade with china would greatly damage each individual
Chinamen`s rights. The reason why is clear: the less economic development, the less human
rights. When people have economic Ireedom, they tend to start wanting more and more civil
Ireedom. This is a trend we see around the world. (Griswold 2000)

The Iirst learning objective asked Ior the interaction between the diIIerent actors in the
international system. Well, how does this relate to trade? There just so happen to be some very
large trading blocs in the world. One oI the biggest is the ASEAN Iollowed closely by the EU,
NAFTA, MERCOSUR, ANDEAN, and the MEFTA. (Bacchus 2011) For the United States, our
top 6 trading partners are as Iollows: Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, and the United
Kingdom. (U.S. Census Bureau 2011) All oI these countries import critical things into America.
Each, however, IulIills its own little niche in our economy. For example, China specializes in
labor intensive consumer goods due to its huge workIorce. Germany, on the other hand, works
more in the Iield oI heavy machinery or detailed electronics. With the advent oI the Iree trade
market, the actors in the global economy are allowed to, '.specialize in areas in which they
have a comparative advantage. which, in turn, allows all nations to beneIit Irom low cost
production areas. (Riley 2010)

Learning objective 2 Iocused on how 'Iundamental human characteristics related to this
topic. Well, in his book, 'What everyone should know about economics and prosperity Richard
Stroup enIorces Adam Smith`s original ideas about an 'invisible hand that drove the market.
This invisible hand takes corporate greed and consumer well-being and harmonizes them so that
both beneIit. For example, we all want to make a buck: especially Wal-Mart. At the same time,
however, consumers and purchasers need to be protected. So, what the 'invisible hand does is
make sure that the corporations take into consideration oI customers knowing that mistreating
them by higher than necessary prices or low quality could and probably would backIire resulting
in lost business and proIit. Another thing that the 'invisible hand does is Iorce businesses into
areas where they can make money and serve the consumer. (Stroup 1996) The same thing occurs
in trade under the theory oI comparative advantage. This theory states that each country can
comparatively produce a certain good cheaper than another country; thereIore, that country`s
businesses should specialize in making it. For the United States, this would be highly technical
electronics, machinery, or aircraIt. As Adam Smith put it in his book, 'The Wealth oI Nations
'It is the maxim oI every prudent master oI a Iamily, never to attempt to make at home what it
will cost him more to make than to buy...What is prudence in the conduct oI every private
Iamily, can scarce be Iolly in that oI a great kingdom. (Smith 1776) Clearly, this is a
Iundamental law oI trade that runs oII human`s basic desire and drive Ior gain.

The third learning objective had 6 parts that I will deal with independently here: the Iirst
was nationalism or the Iervent love oI ones country above all others. In the area oI trade,
nationalism takes the Iorm oI protectionism; the idea that the United States is better oII iI we buy
American, have high tariIIs, and resort to other punitive trade measures. One basic argument oI
protectionists is that United States companies cannot compete Iairly with other nations due to
diIIerent wage levels. This argument doesn`t apply Iirstly, because 'wages across countries are
very similar when adjusted Ior productivity diIIerences and, secondly, because even when these
wages do diIIer it is a 'result oI comparative advantage. (Stonebraker 2010) What this means is
that even iI Chinese workers are paid more they are usually less productive thereby balancing out
the diIIerence in wages.

Another card oIten played by nationalists is the alleged net job loss that occurs Irom trade
with other nations. This is NOT true at all. Net job loss most deIinitely does not occur when we
trade. Notice I say, 'net. I know that many workers do lose their job every year due to trade:
225,000 to be precise (HuIbauer 2005): however, the overall result Irom Iree trade is a gain in
jobs. Take, Ior example, Kimberly Amadeo when she said, 'Free trade creates more jobs than it
outsources. (Amadeo 2010) Or Thomas Friedman in his book, 'The World is Flat when he
says, 'Some American. workers may be aIIected in the transition, but the eIIects will not be
permanent. (Friedman 2005) Trade clearly has net job gains attached to it. One can think oI the
relation oI trade to jobs like this: job losses due to trade and job losses due to technological
advances are extremely similar. (Lindsey 2004) No one complains when a better tractor
eliminates a job and allows Ior more productivity because we know that in the end our economy
is helped. We should all view Ioreign imports in the same light. When we have more eIIiciently
made goods coming into America, it help us not hurts us. In the words oI Daniel Griswold,
'Trade with other nations does not reduce the number oI jobs, but it does quicken the pace at
which production shiIts Irom one sector |oI the economy| to another.

The last big cry oI protectionist nationalists is oIIshoring and wages. The claim here is
that Iree trade increases oIIshoring and lowers wages. This is simply not the case either. See,
oIIshoring allows companies to maximize productivity while innovating, saving money, and
being more creative. This, in turn, allows United States companies gain a larger market share
which allows them to create more jobs here in the United States. (Friedman 2005) In Iact,
oIIshoring both creates jobs and exports Ior the oIIshoring country. (Friedman 2005) American
wages are thriving, not declining. According to Tim Kane, "Globally engaged U.S.
multinationals on average pay their employees about 20 percent above the national average."
(Kane 2007*) Those United States companies that engage in trade have clearly beneIited Irom
the exchange. So, in the areas oI Ioreign wages, jobs, oIIshoring, and domestic jobs, nationalism
does not hold up in the area oI trade.

Trade is a key Ior globalization. It is one oI the Iew things that have caused our economy
to become so integrated over the past century. (Rourke-Boyer 2010) Trade has been an
incredible boost to the process oI globalization allowing Americans to interact with people,
countries, and businesses across the world. (Kane 2007) And, unlike popular theory, this does
not hurt America: it helps us. (Friedman 2005) All in all, globalization as a result oI trade allows
American 'citizens greater access to technology and ideas through Iax machines, satellite dishes,
mobile telephones, Internet access, and Iace-to-Iace meetings with people Irom other countries.
(Griswold 2002*) Trade also strengthens sovereignty. For example, during the Civil War one oI
the things that the South wished was trade. Why? Because trade would tell the rest oI the world
that the ConIederate States were a viable nation. (Dwyer 2010) Trade, and the regulation thereoI,
helps solidiIy a nation`s sovereignty to the rest oI the globe. As Ior democracy, I will address this
more Iully under learning objective 4; however, suIIice it to say that trade has a very direct and
positive eIIect on the democracy and or liberty oI each nation doing the trading: and stopping
that trade hurts those Ireedoms. (Bandow 1997)

Trade is also provides great strength Ior international relations. It does this in 3 diIIerent
areas. Firstly, because trade increases personal Ireedoms, it increases democracy; as we have
heard several times this year, both in the textbook and in videos, that democratic nations rarely iI
ever go to war with one another. Secondly, nations that trade a lot have much more at stake in a
war than nations that don`t trade a lot. This makes nations think twice beIore engaging in a
conIlict that could potentially devastate supply routes and trade lines. (Griswold 2007) Lastly,
trade makes other nations both see each other Iavorably at the State to State level and personal
level. It builds strength and trust throughout the entire relationship. As aptly stated by Arvind
Panagariya 'As a Iinal point, it is must be remembered that the real strength oI the relationship
will have to Ilow Irom business-to-business and person-to-person contacts. The governments can
reinIorce these contacts by resisting protectionist impulses. (Panagariya 2010*) Allowing trade
to Ilow Ireely between countries will allow private citizens to build trust and Iriendship thereby
enIorcing the most basic Ioundation Ior a peaceIul relationship. For example, we can look at
China and India. According to Bruce Riedel, 'We need to engage India heavily in trade so that
we can Iorge better overall ties with an emerging global power, and the world`s largest nation in
the making. As we saw last year, protectionist impulses caused Obama to, 'hector India over
trade issues and then 'Congress |transIormed| this talk into ugly action. (Scissors 2010) As Ior
China, recent attempts at hindering trade have put a large damper on our relationship. (Kim
2006) (Inkenson 2011) The more we restrict trade the more we see our relationships disintegrate.

International trade greatly boosts power oI nations as well. It does this in two areas: both
as economic power and military power. For example, China currently, 'remains highly
dependent on U.S. export markets. (Prasad 2009) The country oI China is relies on United
States consumers to drive its economy. II the United States government were to suddenly place
huge barriers on Chinese consumer goods exports, China`s economy would take a hit. (Griswold
2002) This gives the United States quite a bit oI power over China that they wouldn`t have iI
large amounts oI trade didn`t exist. Domestically, trade drives a lot oI economic power as well.
According to Gary HuIbauer, '43.2 oI our GDP growth is due to increased trade. (HuIbauer
2005) II we stop or hinder trade, we lose economic power domestically. Militarily, China has
inIluence over us. Currently, the United States does not have the capabilities to mine rare earths,
a critical component in many iI not most high tech military equipment. Even though the United
States has more than enough rare earth mines, we don`t have the mining capacity needed Ior the
'complicated process oI turning minerals into usable tech components. (Goldenberg 2010)
Because the United States imports almost all oI our rare earth Irom China, they do have some
military inIluence over us due to trade.

The Iourth learning objective dealt with IGOs and human rights. I want to deal Iirstly
with the WTO. Created as a result oI the GATT, the WTO plays an integral part oI United States
trade policy. (WTO 2005) Under the WTO the United States has to obey rules on antidumping
policy, countervailing duties, tariIIs, and other trade barriers. Out oI all the IGOs that aIIect the
United States, the WTO has the most direct eIIect on trade oI any other one. (Rourke-Boyer
2010) As Iar as human rights are concerned, we can once again look at China Ior a great
example. By trading more and more with China, we do quite a bit Ior both them and us
economically, but most poignant is the Iact that, 'we also spread political and civil Ireedoms.
(Griswold 2002) When people get a taste oI economic Ireedom, growth, or prosperity, they tend
to both urge Ior and get more and more democratic government and liberty. In Iact, this works
best in oppressed countries like China were there is plenty oI room Ior Ireedom to grow. (Dorn
1996) (Wortzel 2001) This issue was summed up nicely by the CATO institute when it said,

'We believe expanding |trade| with China will continue to beneIit religious organizations
working in China by 1) Encouraging China`s adherence to international law and a rules
based trading system, 2) Facilitating China`s civil society in developing it`s rule oI law
and 3) Expanding personal Ireedoms Ior its population.

The IiIth learning objective Iocused on 'sustainable development or, more succinctly,
the harmIul impact oI increased economic growth on the environment. The erroneous philosophy
here is that increased economic growth damages our environment. I would like to show how this
is not true whatsoever. For example, the 30 oI electronic waste that cannot be repaired is
generally dumped into LDC`s landIills. Freer trade 'helps lessen toxic electronic waste exports
and increases the eIIicient recycling oI these materials. (Ingenthron 2010) As Ior the
environment as a whole, 'Free trade is good Ior the environment largely because it increases
income and thus the demand Ior environmental quality as well as the technical capacity to
control pollution. (Pecquet 2007) Overall, because trade makes people richer, it increases their
awareness oI pollution and environmental damage and, as a result, helps keep the miniscule
damage done by people to the environment to a minimum. Many times, people will treat
increased economic growth and production as iI it is a bane to the environment: this is just not
true.

The last learning objective deals global issues surrounding the topic and how they aIIect the
international system. One issue that many people, IGOs and NGOs see as important is the
income disparity between ECDs and LCDs. (Rourke-Boyer 2010) Many people even go so Iar as
to claim that trade between ECDs and LCDs should not be done because oI this gap. However,
even iI one country seems better oII in a trading situation, this does not mean that the other
country is harmed. This is the realists` zero-sum game that is so detrimental today. (Rourke-
Boyer 2010) When discussing trade in this context we see that it, 'beneIits all countries that
practice those virtues, regardless what other countries do. (Reynolds 2003*) And more
succinctly Irom Adam Smith in using France and England,

'First, Though it were certain that in the case oI a Iree trade between France and England,
Ior example, the balance would be in Iavor oI France, it would by no means Iollow that
such a trade would be disadvantageous to England, or that the general balance oI its
whole trade would thereby be turned more against it. (Smith 1776*)

Even though some nations might beneIit more proportionally in trading, that doesn`t
mean that that trade isn`t both proIitable and morally acceptable. This is exactly what we see
with EDCs and LDCs. The Iact that EDCs beneIit more than LDCs in the majority oI trading
situations does not in any way mean that LDCs shouldn`t trade with EDCs: in Iact, trading with
EDCs is integral Ior quick and steady development in LDCs. (Lincicome 2011) (Litan 2000)

One oI the many areas where trade is controversial is the trade deIicit. The trade deIicit is
basically the dollar amount which describes the discrepancy between what we export and import.
The United States has, in Iact, run a trade deIicit since 1971 at varying levels oI severity. Many
nationalists paint this as jobs leaving the United States. ChieI among these is Robert Scott and
his workplace; the Economic Policy institute. However, what we see in the trade deIicit is strong
consumer demand and a rise in economic growth. As a result, 'a growing trade deIicit is
generally a sign oI a healthy, expanding economy or in this case, a welcome sign oI economic
recovery. (Markheim 2009) And Irom Joseph Meltzer, 'First, the trade deIicit is evidence oI
growing U.S. and global demand. The increase in consumption oI consumer goods is also good
Ior the U.S. economy, as it demonstrates growing consumer conIidence which should in turn
give businesses the conIidence to invest and create new jobs. (Meltzer 2011) However, it was
put best by Derek Scissors when he said, 'The bilateral trade deIicit chieIly expands when
American demand is strong. (Scissors 2010) Unlike popular opinion, buying more Irom other
countries than we sell is usually a sign oI good economic times: not bad. The knowledge that the
trade deIicit actually helps America will hopeIully stop politicians Irom acting as though our
trade imbalance needs to be stopped with punitive trade measures. (Paal 2010)


More than just our economy, though, opponents oI the trade deIicit paint the trade deIicit
as jobs leaving the United States. However, as we can clearly see through demonstrated
statistics, 'Contrary to the naysayers` Iretting, there is no harm in a high trade deIicit. (Kane
2007) When we look at the correlation between the trade deIicit and jobs, we see a highly
positive coorelation. In other words, when the trade deIicit goes up, so does employment; when
the trade deIicit goes down, employment Iollows. In Iact, even though, 'Some see the trade
deIicit as a harbinger oI lost jobs, that`s just not true. (Markheim 2010) This whole idea is
absurd. To put it bluntly, 'The idea that a smaller trade deIicit means more American jobs is
simplistic to the point oI being useless. (Scissors 2010)


Another wedge that is currently being driven between the United States and another
country is centered around H1B visas. Now, an H1B visa allows high skilled workers Irom
overseas (mostly Irom India) to apply their skills in the United States Ior a certain period oI time.
Recently, the United States has jacked up our visa Iees causing hundreds oI millions oI dollars
worth oI damage to both the Indian and American economies. (Scissors 2010) Even though
many people would argue that H1B visas hurt America`s workIorce, wages, and encourage
illegal aliens, the recent protectionist measures against India have unIortunately seriously
damaged our relationship. (MatloII 2009) (Miano 2007)


The most controversial aspect oI trade with China comes Irom their unIortunate currency
manipulation. It is undisputed that China does indeed manipulate their currency. (Krugman
2010) However, the damage oI this on America is disputed. Most see this currency manipulation
as damaging to our industries both in the Iorm oI manuIacturing loss and job loss. (Scott 2010)
(Bergsten 2010) (Katz 2010) (Bivens 2006) (Mullhauser 2010) (Krugman 2010) (Pearlstein
2010) The argument here is that because the Chinese have a depreciated currency, that their
exports are more competitive in the world market than are American`s. This is by Iar the tensest
part oI our trade with China. However, Alan Schram takes an interesting point oI view when he
states that Chinese currency depreciation is, 'eIIectively a Chinese subsidy given to American
consumers. (Schram 2010) He later goes onto explain exactly why this is the case. In Iact, he
shows that the net eIIect oI currency depreciation is positive Ior the United States and that
stopping it would be harmIul. His exact quote is as Iollows:

'By buying clothing Irom China, to use one example, American labor and capital are
Ireed to be employed in other, more productive Iields. II we prevent this Chinese subsidy being
giIted to us and reject cheap Chinese goods, American consumers will pay higher prices. There
may be more jobs here, but we will all be poorer.

All in all, trade has serious eIIects on the economies oI all nations in the world. Not only
that, but trade is critical to good international relations and the continuing growth oI human
rights around the world. From a nationalist`s point oI view, Ioreign trade is to be despised.
However, I hope that I have demonstrated how international trade is such a huge part oI our
everyday liIe and that stopping it could have dire consequences in every part oI our liIe. No one
has said it better than Gerald O`Driscoll when he stated,

'Economic Ireedom sustains economic growth and wealth creation. Free markets Ioster
the spirit oI entrepreneurship and innovation that creates new products and jobs. This creative
economic process in turn generates higher incomes, savings and wealth creation, and economic
development in nations.

ReIerences: (All works were accessed May 23-25
th
, 2011)

Amadeo, Kimberly. 2010. Barack Obama and Trade - How Obama Trade Policies Will AIIect
the Economy by
Bacchus, Rosaliene. 2011. Regional trade blocks, tariIIs and trade barriers.
Bandow, Doug. 1997. We Must Persist In Trade With China
Bergsten, Fred. March 24
th
, 2010. Correcting the Chinese exchange rate: an action plan.
Bivens, Josh. September 25
th
, 2006. China manipulates its currency: a response is needed.
Boaz, David. July 9, 2004.The Greatest Story Ever Mistold
Boyer, Mark. 2010. International relations on the World Stage.
http://ebooks.apus.edu.ezproxy2.apus.edu/IRLS210/Rourke2009Ch1.pdI

Cato institute. July 1999. US-China Trade Relations and Its Impact on Religious Activity in the
PRC
Chamber oI Commerce. September 17
th
, 2009. Why Protect Intellectual Property?
China Business Review. 2006. Article on CounterIeiting in China.
Congressional Research Service. August 31, 2007. India-U.S. Economic and Trade Relations

Cowen, Tyler. June 16, 2008. This Global Show Must Go On
Dorn, James. Summer 1996. Trade and human rights: the case oI China
Dwyer, John. 2010. The War between the States: America`s uncivil war.
Eiras, Ana. October 3, 2003. Undervaluing the Damage oI a TariII
Elliot, Kim. May 27
th
, 2009. A US trade policy Ior development

Friedman, Thomas. 2005. The World is Flat
Goldenberg, Suzanne. December 26
th
, 2010. Rare earth metals mine is key to US control over hi-
tech Iuture

Griswold, Daniel. 2009. Mad about Trade

Griswold, Daniel. April 20, 2007. Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle
Griswold. Daniel. November 27, 2000. Going Alone on Economic Sanctions Hurts U.S. More
than Foes
Griswold, Daniel. November 6, 2002. Trade and the TransIormation oI China
Griswold, Daniel. April 20, 1998. America's Maligned and Misunderstood Trade DeIicit.
HuIbauer, Gary. June 7, 2005. The PayoII Irom Globalization.
Ikenson, Daniel . January 18
th
, 2011. Look Hu`s in town to talk trade and security
Ingenthron, Robin. November 27
th
, 2010. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong... How E-Waste Photos steer
WEEE Policy
International CounterIeiting Coalition. 2011.
Kane Tim, Ph.D. March 27, 2007. Long Live Free Trade
Katz, Bruce. September 5
th
, 2010. Five myths about United States exports.
Kim, Anthony. April 18, 2006. China's Economic Invasion: One year later
Krugman, Paul. November 15
th
, 2009. World Out oI Balance.
Lawrence, Robert Z. September 1997. Globaphobia: The Wrong Debate Over Trade Policy,
Lincicome, Scott. January 31, 2011. A Better Case Ior Free Trade
Lindsey, Brink. March 17
th
, 2004. Job Losses and Trade: A Reality Check
Litan, Robert. 2000. Trade Policy: What Next?
Lukas, Aaron. May 27 1998. Two cheers Ior India sanctions
Markheim, Daniella. January 12th, 2010. Growing Trade DeIicit Good News Ior U.S. Economy
Markheim, Daniella. December 10, 2009. Time Ior Obama Administration to Get Serious About
Trade Policy
MatloII, Norm. 2009. The H-1B work visa is Iundamentally about cheap labor
Meltzer, Joseph. February 14
th
, 2011. The U.S. Trade DeIicit, China and the Need to Rebalance
Growth
Miano, John. April 2007. Low Salaries Ior Low Skills Ior H1B Computer Workers
Mullhauser, Scott. October 13
th
, 2010. Baucus calls Ior new path Iorward in United States-China
economic relationship.
O'Driscoll, Gerald Ph.D. December 18, 2002. Trade Promotes Prosperity and Security
Paal, Douglas. February 9, 2010. China and the United StatesA DiIIicult Year Ahead
Panagariya, Arvind. September 29
th
, 2010. On Strengthening India-U.S. Ties
Pearlstein, Steven. June 30
th
, 2010. Steering U.S.-China economic relations toward a new
normal.
Pecquet, Gary. 2007. Potential gains Irom trade in dirty industries
Prasad, Eswar. November 11
th
, 2009. An Awkward Dance: China and the United States
Reynolds, Alan. November 16, 2003. The UnIairness oI Fair Trade
Riedel, Bruce O. January 24 February 2009. Continuity in Change by
Riley, Bryan . August 10, 2010. A Prescription Ior Export Growthand Economic Recovery.
Scissors, Derek. September 9, 2010. Targeting the Yuan: A Feel-Good but Futile Response
Scissors, Derek. August 9th, 2010. The Wrong Way to Deal With India
Scissors, Derek. April 6
th
, 2010. Chinese Revaluation Will Still Not Bring American Jobs
Scissors, Derek, Ph.D. July 20, 2009. U.S.-China Trade: Do's and Don'ts Ior Congress.
Schram, Alan. October 17
th
, 2010. Let China manipulate its currency---they are doing us a Iavor.
Scott, Robert. April 19
th
2010. Currency Manipulation History shows that sanctions are
needed.
Sirico, Robert A. July 17
th
, 1998. Free Trade and Human Rights: The Moral Case Ior
Engagement
Smith, Adam. 1776. The Wealth OI Nations, Book II, Chapter II, p.329, para. 106.
Stonebraker, Robert J.. August 12
th
, 2010. The Joy oI Economics.
Stroup, Richard. 1996. What Everyone Should Know About Economics and Prosperity.
The Heritage Foundation. 2010. An analysis oI Free trade.
United States Census Bureau. 2011. Top trading partners Total trade, exports, imports.
Wortzel, Larry. June 6, 2005. Change Partners: who are America's Military and Economic
Allies in the 21st Century?
Wortzel, Larry. May 30, 2001. Trade with China, But Avoid Strengthening Its Military
World Trade Organization. 2005. World Trade Organization`s legal texts
Younkins, Edward W. 2002. Trade Barriers Are Immoral and Destructive oI Economic Well-
Being