When we focus properly on the issues of epidemic, the world changes and we don’t notice it. I will go straight to the point. In the midst of all the tensions between Democrats and Republicans, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved (i.e. 98 to 0) the appointment of Ms. Katherine Tai as the most important role of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The referendum came after Ms Toy expressed herself in complete contradiction to traditional and shared doctrine in favor of “free trade”. The study, which has dominated the past forty years, has been able to soften the political tensions that exist between different countries and, above all, China and the United States, with the exception of Trump’s bracket.
The American political world today is not dedicated to highlighting the growing political problems of distance from China, i.e. the growth of its dictatorship, the abuse of minorities or the increase in military spending. What is most captured in the hearts of the American people today is that free trade has overwhelmed American workers.
Reducing trade fees has failed to pursue the worst goal of increasing collective well-being. The average citizen, after falling in love with Walmart’s low prices and new delivery methods, now accuses them of killing jobs.
These changes have already been translated into government programs because Secretary of State Blinken spoke of “free trade” as a thing of the past, which was believed to have a negative understanding of the negative consequences. As a result, the priority of the US government today is not to prioritize consumers and exporters, but to protect the rights and interests of American workers.
All of this is a continuation of new academic research dedicated to highlighting the amount of jobs lost as a result of Chinese competition. The traditionally shared thesis that almost all the general public is of the opinion that the increase in income due to the increase in international trade will automatically translate into a benefit for all is completely put in a corner.
These orientations seem legitimate and are planned for an indefinite future, with many of the security choices being seen as a foregone conclusion by President Trump. A revolution, if implemented in a common way, will have consequences not only in international trade but also in the functioning of all economic systems.
First, the choice of these companies will force a deep restructuring of the chain, which will reduce the interdependence that now exists between manufacturers scattered around the world, none of which restricts the entire production cycle. So companies need to work gradually in this new framework to make available components and products with security that can only be guaranteed by those who belong to the same business area.
All of this, secondly, refers to a massive public intervention dedicated to achieving the goal of self-sufficiency, not only in technologically advanced fields (such as electronic components, new communication tools or new products), but also in simple products that are an integral part of the production chain.
An exceptional truly public intervention to repair the latest damage to the virus has not been called for, but is seen as a permanent tool to accelerate the scientific-technological leap needed to achieve the level of autonomy required by changes in international politics.
This is not a promising picture from a political or economic point of view, because if taken seriously, it will restrict cooperation between the two world powers only to the field of the environment, however, progress requires an increase in scientific and productive cooperation, which is precisely affected by the principles outlined above.
The main consequences of this shift in perspective over all Europe are based on a strategy for business opening that covers all sectors, rather than the United States, and, above all, towards all countries in the world.
Faced with this different environment of trade flows, the new policy of public incentives and the possibility of a change in the direction of research, Europeans have a duty to develop a strategy at the continental level that will allow them to face challenges. The states and China are getting ready. The policy of the next generation of EUs must be in line with the new international framework in which we are called to act. Italy, Europe’s second largest industrial nation, needs to work diligently to push Brussels to make the necessary decisions and to prepare plans that we urgently consider suitable for us.
The U.S. Senate may not be able to show the same level of abstraction it did, but the widely shared Italian strategy is now possible. Let’s at least start making it.