I often borrow the phrase “you cannot shrink to greatness,” which I first heard when companies downsized to make their numbers. When leaders don’t know how to grow revenue or if market conditions do not support revenue growth, they cut staff. Lately, I have been using it to define the goal of nationalist thinkers who believe by restricting global trade, they can make things great.
On the whole, global trade is accretive to growth. Yes, we need to constantly review trade agreements to protect workers, but even trade agreements like NAFTA add value and jobs. If NAFTA were done away with, the state of Texas and the US would suffer, as would our key trading partners on our continent.
A venture capitalist said it succinctly. “Do you know what creates jobs? Customers.” The more trade, the more customers. It is that simple. As for the job losses which subtract from trade related gains, we do need to review the causes and effects. Many jobs have been lost dating back to the 1980s. Companies chase cheap labor, always have. So regardless of trade agreements, the companies were offshoring just as our President has done with his clothing lines and ball caps.
Also, where we are losing more jobs is to technology gains. We do much more manufacturing here, but with far fewer workers, than we did in the 1980s. These technology improvements will continue. So, before we blame trade agreements and throw the baby out with the bath water, we need to understand the metrics. What jobs are created, which ones are lost and why?
The other factor that does not get enough airplay is just as US companies are building products closer to customers, so are foreign companies here. Think of all the foreign cars and trucks made here in Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, Alabama, etc. and think of foreign companies like Doosan, Mitsubishi, Michelin, Husqvarna, to name only a few, who have facilities here in the states. These are additive jobs to our economy.
Reducing trade is not conducive to growth. If you recall the movie “A Beautiful Mind,” about the schizophrenic John Nash, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics, ask yourself why he won? His theory called the Nash Equilibrium proved very useful in global deals in growing the pie bigger. The Nash Equilibrium says if we look to maximize only our own gain, while others do the same, the competition squashes trade. Yet, if we work together to make everyone benefit, the economic pie gets larger.
Reducing trade is also not conducive to greater security. The more commerce you do with countries that may not be an ally, the more you both will work to keep the commerce successful. So, military interventions would be harmful to that trade.
So, retrenching from the global markets, would not only be dilutive to growth, it would make us less secure. This is the argument that should be very visibly discussed as we look to improve agreements. Because no agreement is not a good course as it will cause a shrinking effect. And, you cannot shrink to greatness.