An Analysis: The U.S. Trade Deficit: Are We Trading Away Our Future? -
Scott, in this published testimony, revisits very familiar territory -- the issue of trade deficits and account balances -- and does manage to present insights that have a certain relevance. Of the greatest value is his positioning of the American economy in its global context, forcing the listeners to re-analyze previously held conceptions. It is his idea that we are possibly trading away our future. Since it is a speech, he makes no attempt to investigate or explain all aspects of international trade and economic theories, all focusing on America as one of the World's business powers, and not as the World Business Power.
He brings a sharp focus to this issue by focusing on three periods of American history -- post World War II and the Marshall Plan when the account deficit was minimal, the 1970s when Asia emerged as a manufacturing power, and 1998 when America had become basically a consuming economy.
Scott sees the 1970s as the watershed date, since this was when the U.S. moved from a trade surplus to a deficit position, a period when "Europe and Japan began to compete effectively with the U.S. in a range of industries. There are many ways in which trade has injured U.S. workers since then."
This jump from thesis point to thesis point, apparent throughout the speech, is a style of formal rhetoric that is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", meaning "after this, then this, then this." It is an effective kind of reasoning, but does tend to blur the distinctions of the connective tissues between the bones of his arguments. For taken simply on the face of his argument, the statement that foreign trade imbalance has hurt American workers needs to have a bit of substance added to it. He does this by referring to the first chart which shows the relationship of trade imbalance and American wages. It is a good chart, but one whic
...