International Economics: IB Economics

Larry Elliott produces a number of justifications for US protectionist measures against China: economic growth  hasn't been accompanied by liberalization, China's disregard for intellectual property rights and the fact that it has hollowed out much of American manufacturing all suggest that there's a case for aggressive industrial policy and the imposition of tariffs. 

The President used his State of the Union address to, once again, threaten China over unfair trade practices, the theft of intellectual property and the size of the US trade deficit.

He may have a point regarding the first two, and legal justification too. However, I'd like to here his explanation of the third - the US trade deficit has hardly budged, even with the ongoing trade war, so perhaps much of the solution lies closer to home.

And as for the claim that "the theft of American jobs and wealth has come to an end", the face of Nancy Pelosi, pictured behind the President might imply that she shares my view that this might best be achieved by the impeachment of the President. 

One of the interesting aspects of the ongoing US-China trade war is the way that it shines a light on longstanding areas of disagreement. In this case it's intellectual property rights - and the issue is complicated by the fact that "Micron sued both Fujian Jinhua and the Taiwanese company United Microelectrics Corp for stealing trade secrets."

And it's even more complicated by the fact that Fujian Jinhua is state-owned.

Joseph Stiglitz argues that Davos 2022 represents another missed opportunity - yet another - to reflect on the existing global order and it's weaknesses. He argues that, in part, this reveals the myopia of an organisation still uncritically committed to globalisation but with little willingness to tackle the structural issues that remain. 

He highlights broken global supply chains, issues with food and energy production and an intellectual property regime that has allowed pharmaceutical companies to profit from the pandemic. Does the new world order need to go beyond the previous model and re-invent itself. 

Karishma Vaswani focuses on the notion that the US and China re nearing agreement on how to end their trade dispute, arguing that any deal is unlikely because of three apparent irreconcilable issues: intellectual property rights, market access and the 'Made in China 2025' campaign that looks at developing Chinese competitors in high tech sectors, like aviation and superconductors. 

On this basis alone, she sees complete agreement as highly unlikely at the moment. Let's see if she's right. 

A bizarre international trade story that highlights intellectual property rights and the complexity of branding. The New Zealand authorities have impounded and destroyed 108 boxes of Weetabix because it feels that Antipodean brand Weetbix might lose out.