• Option A
  
• Option B
  
• Option C
  
• Option D
  
• Option E
  

President Ardath N. Blauvelt, Republican:

The key to Ricardo's philosophy is "a billion decisions" having a better chance of being right than one made by a self-serving central control -- even in the matter of trade. The problem with all the other "solutions" is that they were grounded in another time, in another stage of development, both nationally and globally, or, as in the Boutros Boutros-Ghali idea, built of pipe dreams. History teaches us that unfettered trade builds economies and brings the most people the most prosperity. While the world seems smaller and in many ways is, of course, it still contains enormously diverse cultures, skills, climates, natural resources and, most important, different stages of economic development. No one is going to do our bidding and yes, nations with whom we do not trade, will trade and prosper elsewhere.

At the same time, pinning our trade hopes hemispherically is just plain absurd -- Mexico and even Canada can hardly compete with, nevermind fulfill, our domestic needs. MFN status is outdated and embarrassingly misused. It is a worn out tool from another age. If we, as a people, object to Chinese domestic practices AND if we are fully informed by an unbiased press (i.e. unlike the one which never admitted tribal violence in South Africa until it couldn't hide it anymore) then the American people will decide from whom they will buy. Trade is, or should be, about getting goods and services at the most economically sensible price. Trade "deals" are different from the kinds of "pacts" that eventually lead to trade wars. Trade is still, as of yore, a source of information, learning, growing. It should be no more restricted than information is. Living in fear of another's ability to compete is an admission of incompetence and in some ways, infantile. America is one of the grown-ups in the world, despite our "Boy Wonder" attitude, and the world would be better off all the way around if we would behave as such.

President Greg Walz-Chojnacki, Unregistered:

I don't see free trade as incompatible with industrial policy, as your Ricardo summary suggests. Free trade, coupled with policies that discourage consumption/encourage savings is, in my view, the best recipe. We may also require our bigger trading partners to shoulder a larger portion of the burden of their defense.

President Bob Warwick, Independent:

I would choose the Ricardo option, but with a bit of Bush and Boutros thrown in. Free trade -- the freer the better -- benefits everyone and that must be our overriding goal. International agreements (Boutros) can be useful in trying to achieve free trade on all sides, but we "bite off our nose to spite our face" if we use WTO and similar organizations as a subterfuge for protection. As communication across borders increases, members of societies (such as Japan's) which have starved themselves at the altar of the positive trade balance will become increasingly less willing to do so (Bush). Time is ultimately on the side of free trade but in the meantime we must do nothing to hinder it.

President Matthew Estabrook, Independent:

Free trade is not perfect, but it is far superior to the alternatives. In the short run, tariffs can protect some jobs in the United States. But in the long run, they make us poorer as a nation.

First, tariffs are not simply paid by foreign countries. Those who export their goods to the States raise the cost of their goods to compensate for tariffs they face. Tariffs, then, are paid by American consumers, not foreign governments! Consequently, the government is actually forcing Americans to pay more for products than they would otherwise have to pay. This means we are able to buy fewer goods, and we are poorer than we would otherwise be. This is absurd! As you can see, it would make sense for the United States to eliminate trade barriers even if other countries failed to reciprocate!

Second, Tariffs do not save American jobs by making American products more attractive (affordable) than foreign products. Demand for American products will increase initially, but that will drive the price up to a level where the foreign goods again become competitive. The only difference is that now, everyone is paying a lot more for their cars, be they imports or domestics, than they would otherwise have paid. Again, tariffs and other trade barriers simply make us poorer by raising the prices of goods we'd like to buy. Tariffs might preserve some American jobs for a while, but it's small consolation if the prices of goods skyrocket out of the typical worker's grasp.

A world of free trade is a world of constant change. As businesses around the world compete to provide products to consumers around the world, some people will be driven out of business. We mustn't forget this, and we must do what we can to help people to adapt to this ever-changing economy. But we can't stop change, and we ought not. Progress is impossible without it.

The question that faces us is this: Do we want a world in which goods become more affordable each day, or less affordable? The choice is clear. We must put the interests of every American consumer first, and favor a free trade policy.

President Mark Jackson, Republican:

The decision was an easy one. The only things governments should try to regulate are public goods where individuals have no incentive to behave in a socially optimal manner. I think trade will be mentioned in a jingoistic manner in the upcoming election, but will not emerge as an important issue.

President Frank Yates, Republican:

Our chronic trade deficit is putting too much of our real and financial wealth into the hands of foreigners. We need to become more competitive in the long term, but in the short term we need to stop the bleeding by whatever means are feasible.

President Robert McCarty, Republican:

We should act in a subtly neo-mercantilist manner in a global trade regime that otherwise encourages free trade. A free trade regime does benefit all, but especially those who break the rules and get away with it -- much as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty benefits all, but especially the nuclear powers. Not a difficult decision, really -- the classic Prisoner's Dilemma (yes, I have read Fallows, as well as Chalmers Johnson). Unfortunately, my candidate (Dole) and his party do not understand this issue as well as the President and his staff (esp. Kantor & the late Secretary Brown) do.

President Burgess Laird:

A. Not a hard decision given the options. B. My candidate, President Clinton, would have proposed the Hamiltonian strategy (Option B) to some audiences, the Inevitability thesis (Option C) to other audiences. In fact, that is the story of his Presidency to this point in the trade arena. Of course, he only acts upon Option C. Though the activist and otherwise semi-protectionist trade policies of other, mostly East Asian nations, are not the only source of present and growing bilateral US trade deficits, they must be addressed in a more realistic and hard-nosed fashion than, say, the US-Japanese auto negotiations of the last year. The Hamiltonian strategy is all the more imperative in light of the exploding deficit with the PRC and the unfair trading practices which ARE largely the source of that deficit. Choosing the right cases to act upon requires careful thought -- but software in the Chinese case, and Kodak in the Japanese case are probably good places to take a stand. If we don't adopt such a Hamiltonian strategy, the WTO is nothing more than a farce (excuse me, the remember Boutros Boutros-Ghali option).

President Kenny Canfield, Democrat:

I do not support the extreme measures that Pat Buchanan supports. However, I believe that we can take more measures to make American products and industries competitive while still supporting freedom of international trade.

President Jeff Chace:

I understand that tariffs are not popular in the "international trade" GATT/NAFTA circles. However, one thing that is being sorely overlooked is the disparity between import production costs and retail pricing. The Ricardo philosphy would have us believe that because companies can produce goods more cheaply in foreign countries we are reaping huge savings over what our production costs would be. This is merely true for the industrial complex which is garnering huge profits by moving manufacturing facilities to impoverished nations such as Mexico and Pakistan and then importing the goods back into the U.S. and selling them at the same price as domestically produced items (e.g. tennis shoes). We as consumers get no price break due to the lower labor costs. The biggest argument against tariffs is that the domestic manufacturer can artificially inflate his price right up to the imposed price on imports. Would someone please explain to me why this is undesirable, yet cheap foreign goods keeping pace with domestic prices w/o tariffs is a good thing?

President Dick D, Democrat:

It seems the best trade policy would be to have organized, educated consumers. For instance if I don't like the policies of China than I shouldn't buy their products and this would hopefully have the desired effect.

President Tom Cummings, Democrat:

Choosing between the options presented was difficult, because each addressed an important element of the international trade issue. The problem with the options is that they were structured to address a single element, e.g., using trade sanctions to open markets. The trade issue is multi-faceted. We should use some trade sanctions to open certain markets, use the WTO to further our efforts, support the development of China's middle class (and thereby the nation's move to democracy), protect our greatest products (primarily intellectual property), and help develop our neighbor's economic stability. I vote for the Bismarck option--If it furthers the interests and welfare of America, long term and short term, use it.

President Richard P. Voss:

I agree completely with David Ricardo and only partly with George Bush. Nevertheless, I agree that sometimes complaints, or even retaliations, are needed in the short run, if for no other reason just to convince the rest of the world with a stick (James Monroe's stick?) that David Ricardo was right.

No one, not even James Fallows and certainly not Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan, has overcome the irrefutable logic of David Ricardo. Both parties to international free trade ALWAYS benefit. This does not mean that every individual benefits, and pain is ususally more visible than economic progress. But each nation as a whole does benefit, and the proper response to the pain is the individual initiative of displaced workers to retrain themselves and to place themselves in other employment, better oriented to their individual comparative advantage. No governmental policy is needed to translate that into national comparative advantage.

President John B. Clark, Democrat:

Obviously a complex decision, made all the more difficult by the fact that each of the presented options contains some element of merit. Therefore, I would not limit myself as President to the exclusive pursuit of only one option. I would propose a graduated response to trade questions, along with simultaneously preparing for the worst-case scenario.

Thus, option D is the first step, and is married with the pronouncement of our belief in free trade (option A). We choose the WTO in an effort to submit the laissez-faire doctrine to the review of our trading partners, who we would expect to uphold our contention. However, we must avail ourselves of remedies should the offending nations ignore the verdict of the WTO review. This would mean progression to option B, legitimizing our unilateral action with the agreeable WTO ruling. We cannot allow American industry to suffer without protecting its interests. We win any trade war, due exactly to the fact that everyone needs access to our markets, and if the American consumer pays more in the short-term, it merely introduces the opportunity for new businesses to fill any resultant gap. This actually supports our national interests in the long term, by assuring that all our strategic material needs can be met internally. Energy products are an obvious exception, and a different approach is pursued. Does this undermine American hegemony? No, it strengthens it, as long as our resolve remains unquestioned. And since we are insisting on fair and open trade, the ultimate merits of our position are unassailable.

The Bush option is attractive, but China is currently putting the lie to its core assumptions. Therefore, we must work to "contain" China by picking our battles carefully, and not getting into difficulties with other Asian trading partners. With them, the Bush doctrine can be selectively applied. However, the emergence of trading blocks may be inevitable, and so we simultaneously pursue the Monroe option to create healthy neighbors. We must make clear that our "preponderance of force" will be used in the interests of those who toe the line because what we want is really in everyone's best interests. So, we go D, but aren't afraid to move on to B. E is always being pursued, and C is the hopeful course we try to maintain the majority of the time. A really isn't an option in the real world at the moment.

President C. L. Holoman, Democrat:

Note that 4 of the 5 choices are essentially free-trade oriented. It is clear from both theory and experience that as the largest economy in the world, free trade will benefit the U.S. Clearly, there will be losers and the country must decide how or if to compensate them. But that is cheaper than the broad dead-weight losses of protectionism. I'll vote for the WTO option, because the future of international cooperation rests in international organizations. The parallels to the League of Nations, while not exact, are instructive. For the largest economy in the world not to support this institution would run the risk of collapsing the free trade regime that has proven so successful.

President Mark Smircina, Democrat:

This was a tough call; there were, I think, very reasoned arguments on all points. I don't think that we can return to a protectionist, isolationist trade policy -- that is akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face. A better long-term approach I think is to develop our own "OAS Trade Zone" within the western hemisphere. We can improve the lives of all within the western hemisphere (and enhance our own security) by doing everything possible to improve the economic development of Central and South America.

President Evan Allen, Democrat:

The key fact to recall when making trade decisions is the effect they have on both national economic and on national military security. Tariffs that are deliberately designed to keep specific products from specific nations out of our markets will create hostility and resentment. On the other hand, a fair and rational policy could certainly favor those nations in our hemisphere that are willing to join us in the goal of a regional market that could out-perform both Asia and Europe. To do so would cement military and economic alliances within our hemisphere (our single greatest threat *and* our single greatest opportunity) for the foreseeable future.

President Michael Thibodeau, Democrat:

America's job creation potential is certainly the envy of the world. But exactly what types of jobs are being created? While we wait for our foreign trading partners to cash in their "IOUs," and for currency markets to reach new equilibriums, American workers are left in the lurch, hopping from one low-paying job to next until new markets are established that can use their skills. America needs a regional industry development plan, fostering industries in which we and our nearest neighbors will be most competitive in the future.

President K. Fairfield:

Why do all discussions of trade ignore our largest trading partner, who sells us more than we sell to it, who was our pioneer partner in free trade, who enjoys a standard of living comparable to our own, and remains the best friend we ever had?

Click here to return to current Executive Decision scenario.