Several press outlets are running articles about how the Biden team’s trade posture will “involve a laser focus on what improves wages and creates high-paying jobs in the United States, rather than making the world safe for corporate investment,” (See https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-team-promises-new-look-in-trade-policy-11611484201.)
Some articles are also quoting Lawrence Summers – apparently from 2015 — who said that “elite concerns” such as about intellectual property and investment shouldn’t be a focus of US trade policies. http://larrysummers.com/2015/04/05/time-us-leadership-woke-up-to-new-economic-era/.
The WSJ article suggests that pharma issues will be less of a focus for the Biden team.
Jake Sullivan co-authored an article in Foreign Policy where he mentioned the disconnect between US companies owning the IP but not manufacturing in the US. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/07/america-needs-a-new-economic-philosophy-foreign-policy-experts-can-help/
Is the problem the lack of manufacturing or an over-emphasis on IP? It seems that the authors are conflating the two. In my opinion, they should be saying that encouraging research organizations, universities, small businesses and individual creators and designers to develop path-breaking brands, invent, and create new artistic works would lead to more jobs. China has a much higher cohort of individual inventors than the United States and has several programs in place that encourage “mass innovation.” Of course, incentives for US companies to commercialize their inventions to manufacture in the United States also creates jobs. The two are not opposed.
Welcome to the bumpy ride!
Categories: mass innovation, Service Invention
Leave a Reply