Every country needs to have a plan for ensuring that it can get medical equipment when it needs it. But it’s costly and risky to seek self‐sufficiency in this production, and it’s better for everyone to maintain a cooperative international approach to making these products.
Market‐sharing managed trade arrangements are a bad way to approach trade agreements, but even putting that aside, there is still the question of whether they work. It will be interesting to see how the U.S. strategy is effective here.
Many politicians and interest groups involved in the debate over the fate of NAFTA seem eager to put everything behind them and ratify USMCA as quickly as possible. We think it is worth discussing and debating what’s in USMCA first.
The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office released a “fact sheet” about the new U.S. — China trade deal. A full analysis will have to wait until the text is released in January, but some comments on the details are provided here.
Are the current terms of China’s WTO participation “fair”? What changes, if any, need to be made? Are there WTO rules that can be used to bring cases against China, but have been overlooked? What is the best way for the U.S. government to address China’s state intervention in its economy? How do the efforts of past administrations compare to those of the Trump administration? What should the next administration do?
When the EU promotes geographical indications for products like Roquefort cheese, as it is doing in current talks for an EU‐China free trade agreement, it spreads this protectionist idea to the other countries. The U.S. should push back against this policy, but it’s worth nothing that the EU was able to achieve this result without threatening China with tariffs.