ORDER OF PRESENTATION

Okay, how did you do?  For the recurring readers of this blog, this writer gave them an assignment.  In the previous postings, he identified eighteen insights regarding the study of foreign trade and how that trade affects the availability of jobs in the US.  The reason for this listing was that he is developing, in real time, a unit of study that could serve as the final unit of a civics course at the high school level.  The insights identify the bulk of the content the unit will teach.

          In the last posting, he re-identified them, in shorten form, so that they all appear in one place.  The assignment was to determine, after listing them in the order of presentation, which insights should be included as the content components of the actual lesson plans.  Not all insights could probably be used because being a two-week unit, with nine instructional days, there would not be enough time to address all eighteen.  This blog addresses the first of these steps: what will be the order of presentation.

So, along with participating readers, this developer, for this posting, orders the insights and that listing is indicated below.  Does the reader agree with the developer’s ordering of these insights?  Here is that listing, in even more shorten form, and the identified number initially assigned to each insight:[1] 

1.     ninth (post World War II bias),[2]

2.     third (NAFTA, WPO, and TPP),[3]

3.     seventh (liberal policy backfire),[4]

4.     eighth (too long caring about resentment potential),[5]

5.     first (inability to follow the jobs),[6]

6.     fifth (“rise of the rest”),[7]

7.     sixth (Peterson memo),[8]

8.     twelfth (State Department vs. Peterson memo), [9]

9.     eighteenth (the function of floating currency valuations),[10]

10. eleventh (globalization’s benefits to third world countries), [11]

11. thirteenth (“beggar thy neighbor policy”), [12]

12. second (function of technology),[13]

13. fourth (job loss due to aversion to adjust),[14]

14. fourteenth (European pro-market strategies), [15]

15. sixteenth (advanced technology culprit?),[16]

16. tenth (MNCs and TNCs),[17]

17. seventeenth (nurturing domestic businesses),[18] and

18. fifteenth (states and cities competing).[19]

Again, each entry is cited to indicate in which posting – accessible through this blog’s archival feature – one can find a fuller description of the insight plus a lesson idea by which the insight can be “taught.”  In addition, this listing should be an attempt to employ a historical approach.  The aim is to have students develop a narrative of how public policy in foreign trade has evolved over the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.  Therefore, the order they are addressed in the teaching of the unit becomes even more important.

The next posting will conduct the elimination of some insights and perhaps begin the actual inclusion of a lesson plan or two.

---

[1] In terms of the initial numbering, the reader is directed to see the previous posting.  For example, as number 1 here, this insight was the ninth identified insight and it first appears in this blog in the posting entitled “Excessive Marshall Plan Thinking?”  That posting was posted on September 15, 2017.

[2] See “Excessive Marshall Plan Thinking?”, September 15, 2017.

[3] See “Problematic Consequences,” September 5, 2017.

[4] See “Excessive Marshall Plan Thinking?”

[5] See “Excessive Marshall Plan Thinking?”

[6] See “Problematic Consequences.”

[7] See “Counting on a Strong Position Too Heavily,” September 12, 2017.

[8] See “Counting on a Strong Position Too Heavily.”

[9] See “The Face of Globalization,” September 19, 2017.

[10] See “To Be Pro Market or Not,” September 26, 2017.

[11] See “The Face of Globalization.”

[12] See “Restrictive or Liberalized,” September 22, 2017.

[13] See “Problematic Consequences.”

[14] See “Is Globalization Inevitable?” September 8, 2017.

[15] See “Restrictive or Liberalized.”

[16] Wang Wen, “A US-China Trade War Would Cause Huge Damage and Benefit Nobody,” Financial Times, March 27, 2017, accessed September 22, 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/3b49cd2a-10ad-11e7-b030-768954394623 .  See “Restrictive or Liberalized.”

[17] See “The Face of Globalization.”

[18] See “To Be Pro Market or Not.”

[19] See “Restrictive or Liberalized.” 

FIRST CHOICES

Now that this blog has identified the content for a unit of study being developed for this blog in real time – concerning foreign trade and how that trade affects the availability of jobs in the US – and what the unit calls on students to do – organize a debate and carrying it out – it’s time for the next phase.  This posting begins the process to set that content in an order of presentation in formal lesson plans. 

To assist in that process, below is a listing, in one place, of all the insights the developer has presented in previous postings.  This rendition will be in shorten form with each attached footnote indicating in which posting the more lengthen form appeared.

For this posting, he wants to give the reader an opportunity to make his/her choices.  If he/she wants to “play” along, the idea is for the reader to go down the list and see which ones deserve being included in the unit.  To assist making those choices, the reader might first go through list and just arrange the insights according to how, in terms of timing, they should be presented; that is, which would be presented first, then second, and so on.

One constraint, if this was a real-life planning, is the amount of time a teacher has.  To remind the reader, this unit is the last unit of the course.  As the last unit, it was determined that it would be given two weeks.  That is nine class periods leaving one, last day for a unit test.

          Another constraint is the determined sophistication level of the student.  At the high school level, that would be, in terms of grade level, seniors.  Not all seniors are of the same level of accomplishment; the assumption here is that the class in question is of average ability, but it is a class of students who have “benefited” from the instruction associated with the previous units of the course that has led to this final one. 

The teacher, in this last unit, therefore, can count on students knowing that they are about to organize and carry out a debate.  The students have been given instruction that has addressed several of the skills upon which good debating calls.  They also know that their grades are dependent on how well they do.  After all, while one wants to be idealistic, one lives in the real world and in that world, grades matter.

So, here are the eighteen insights that have been identified.  The clear majority of them are derived from Edward Alden and his book, Failure to Adjust:  How Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy.[1]  There is one insight not taken from this Alden source and it is so designated

The first insight is:  Displaced workers who have lost their jobs to workers of other countries cannot follow those jobs due to practical reasons, such as language barriers.[2]

          The second insight is:  Along with competition emanating from imported goods and foreign producers, there is also competition factors relating to technology, but the ones that cause the most harm are those that export jobs.[3]

          The third insight is:  Agreements among nations that have had very detrimental effects on the availability of jobs in the US, but at the same time have offered Americans several benefits, such as lower consumer prices.  These agreements include NAFTA, WTO, and TPP.[4]

The fourth insight is:  The economic shortfalls to certain groups of workers in the US is not due to globalization, but the inability or aversion of the US government to adjust.[5]

The fifth insight is:  During the 1960s, the “rise of the rest,” led by Germany and Japan, took hold.  That poses threats to the US.  Reason:  failure of US to adjust as exemplified by US maintaining high currency evaluations.[6]

The sixth insight is:  According to Peterson memo, US policy in foreign trade was highly deficient and that the US dominance in world trade was by then, 1971, over.  The reasons were many, but underlying these reasons was an arrogance by the US that determined all the US had to do to maintain its vaulted position was to form the rules and regulations of international trade.[7]

The seventh insight is:  After World War II, the US’ policy to assist devastated countries after WWII backfired as those countries did not become the markets for US products planners foresaw.[8]

The eighth insight is:  The Marshall Plan type thinking, that called for a liberal, general foreign economic policy to Europe and Japan, was held on to for too long a time.  This effort was to avoid resentment of defeated nations, but was by the 1970s causing the US too much economic harm.[9]

The ninth insight is:  After the initial period after World War II, low tariffs, less regulations, floating currency valuations was stated goals of US.  An example was the Trade Expansion Act (1962) pushed by the Kennedy Administration.  This served the interests of certain economic entities such as import/export service industry, large corporate entities, technology industries, and retail industries, but hurt workers.[10]

The tenth insight is:  Assisting the transfer of jobs abroad has been the rise of transnational corporations (MNCs and TNCs).[11]

The eleventh insight is:  Globalization in trade has lowered consumer prices and increased the spreading of technology.  Often this has been to lesser developed nations.[12] 

The twelfth insight is:  The Peterson memo was judged by the State Department as being as too dismissive of the need to establish better relations with other nations, too nationalistic, and an encouragement to Congress to pass higher tariffs and restrictive regulations on foreign trade.[13]

The thirteenth insight is:  Often in American discourse concerning international trade, it is portrayed as a zero-sum competition.  Unfortunately, this has been accomplished by nations, especially China and Japan, ascribing to “beggar thy neighbor” strategies.[14]

The fourteenth insight is:  In counter distinction to Asian countries, European countries use more pro-market strategies.[15] 

The fifteenth insight is:  In the US, state and city governments have become very aggressive in competing for jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector.  Some strategies are aimed at luring such jobs from other states.  Other strategies include tax incentives (mostly tax reduction plans); but best of all are investments in infrastructure (highways, bridges, communication facilities, schooling and training facilities, etc.).[16] 

Sixteenth insight is:  More important than China’s restrictive policies in displacing workers has been advanced technologies (artificial intelligence, automated and electronic manufacturing and management).  The result has been higher levels of efficiency and productivity through the ability of companies to eliminate manufacturing sector jobs.  Solution:  increase exports to China especially in high-tech products such as in aviation technologies.[17]

The seventeenth insight is:  In trying to nurture domestic businesses – so that they can bolster their prospects in foreign trade – the national government invests in education, invests in infrastructure, and subsidizes research and development.[18]

The eighteenth insight is:  In international trade, if a nation’s products are losing favor among customers, then its national currency will lose value.  The opposite happens when a nation’s products become more favored by customers.  Therefore, currency values can help stabilize the balances of trade/payments among nations.  But when a nation manipulates its currency, that policy aborts the market from arriving at such a balance.[19]

          That, then, is the eighteen insights.  After one reviews these insights, the chore is to place them in order.  Which will be “taught” first, which second, and so on.  Then, the lesser important insights are eliminated.  That is what this posting is hoping the reader considers and takes part in the process if only symbolically.

Later, this development will formulate a lesson objective (which will be further described in a future posting), identify lesson steps, supportive materials, and any other assets needed to teach the insight.  Of course, both previously identified factoids and concepts will be fitted-in appropriately in the various lessons.

---

[1] Edward Alden, Failure to Adjust:  How Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy (Lanham, MD:  Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2016).

[2] See “Problematic Consequences,” September 5, 2017.

[3] See “Problematic Consequences.”

[4] See “Problematic Consequences.”

[5] See “Is Globalization Inevitable?”, September 8, 2017.

[6] See “Counting on a Strong Position Too Heavily,” September 12, 2017.

[7] See “Counting on a Strong Position Too Heavily.”

[8] See “Excessive Marshall Plan Thinking?”, September 15, 2017.

[9] See “Excessive Marshall Plan Thinking?”

[10] See “Excessive Marshall Plan Thinking?”

[11] See “The Face of Globalization,” September 19, 2017.

[12] See “The Face of Globalization.”

[13] See “The Face of Globalization.”

[14] See “Restrictive or Liberalized,” September 22, 2017.

[15] See “Restrictive or Liberalized.”

[16] See “Restrictive or Liberalized.”

[17] Wang Wen, “A US-China Trade War Would Cause Huge Damage and Benefit Nobody,” Financial Times, March 27, 2017, accessed September 22, 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/3b49cd2a-10ad-11e7-b030-768954394623 .  See “Restrictive or Liberalized.”

[18] See “To Be Pro Market or Not,” September 26, 2017.

[19] See “To Be Pro Market or Not.”