Instructions: In the next few weeks of FASH455, we will learn about many technical aspects of free trade agreements related to apparel sourcing and trade, such as the preferential tariff rates, apparel-specific rules of origin, and trade agreement utilization. However, this presentation takes a different perspective on trade deals– why they are NOT solely about job creation, why trade agreements increasingly focus on “measures behind borders,” and why international institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) were established.
Feel free to share your thoughts on the video. You may focus on 1-2 specific points that you find interesting, intriguing, controversial, or debatable and then explain your arguments. You could also propose additional discussion questions for your classmates.
Terminologies mentioned in the video and background notes:
- Quota: A quantity restriction on imports. Before 2005, the global textile and apparel trade was subject to 30 years+ quota restrictions. See here for the background information.
- Tariff: A tax levied on imports only. Deemed as “import-sensitive,” US still imposes a much higher tariff rate for textile (8.0%) and apparel products (11.6%) than other manufactured goods (2.2%) on average in 2023. See the World Tariff Profile 2023.
- Non-tariff barriers (NTB): refers to trade barriers other than tariffs, such as technical barriers of trade (TBT), Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, customs procedures, import licensing, and many others. See more examples here.
- GATT and WTO: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was a temporary international treaty signed in 1947 by 23 countries (including the United States). GATT aimed to boost trade-led economic recovery after World War II. Since then, GATT members conducted nine major rounds of negotiations to gradually reduce trade barriers, ultimately establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 as the permanent body governing world trade.
- Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): A trade agreement reached by eleven countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) and the United States in 2016. However, the Trump Administration announced the withdrawal of the United States from TPP in January 2017. Afterward, without the US, the other 11 TPP members reached the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which officially entered into force in December 2018.
FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing 
The most interesting part of this video was that it took a new perspective on the rules behind why we trade. It changed the focus of conversation around free trade agreements from employment and economic opportunities to the national sovereignty of a country. The key takeaway is that free trade agreements should really be about global prosperity. Early in history, the idea behind GATT was that, if countries are interdependent on each other for trade, then they can’t go to war together, and this fueled globalization. Modern free trade agreements are governed by the philosophy that domestic policies need to align with global efficiency by the WTO. In recent years there has been growing conversations and measures around the environmental regulations within apparel sourcing and how this impacts trading. This was seen when Europe did not want to trade with the US because of their use of GMO in foods. This example challenges free trade like we have always known it because this went against global efficiency. Europe was trying to protect national sovereignty by not trading with the US, which I believe is justified. The solution here is hard because trade between the two countries does increase productivity, but that cannot be the only goal of trading when it affects the country’s well being too.
One part of the TED Talk that I found interesting was when the speaker mentioned how WTO wants to make trade as global as possible, but many laws or cultural norms in one country could impact how trade is handled around the world. One example she used was how the United States wants to export genetically modified beef to Europe, but Europe is against GMOs because of its affects on the environment. Another example the speaker used was how in the United States a company can only put “dolphin free tuna” if the tuna is actually free of tuna. This makes consumers want to buy this tuna mora than tuna that does not have that label. This negatively affects Mexico and their fisherman because their waters are heavily populated with dolphins and there is no getting around using them in the process to get Tuna. WTO sided with Mexico, as it limits their ability to export Tuna to countries like the United States. I thought this was interesting because both of these examples proves how the WTO tries to promote trade for every country. This also shows how the WTO factors in social and environmental issues into their trade agreements. As a the governing body for global trade the WTO has to be able to appeal to many different countries cultural differences. With global efficiency being the WTO main priority, it is interesting to see how they go about issue such as the environment because often times being environmentally conscious and globally efficient do not align.
The GATT and how it changed our global trade industry overtime is a clear example of how businesses will never truly know what the economy will be like in the future, which is why strong understandings of global trade and policies, as well as economic growth strategies are so important. I hadn’t even thought about how different countries and their use of things like GMOs can completely affect the way that trade is established globally, like how Europe will not trade with the U.S. for their food because of their GMO usage. This can also affect how successful a country will be in their trade like how Mexican fishermen are excluded from the dolphin free tuna situation. Small details like that can change what countries can trade from where and in turn affects global trade as a whole. There are also the policies and regulations that are most prominent in different countries that affect trade like if one country cares more about environmental sustainability and another cares more about clean food processes. All of these aspects of global trade affect the smooth flow of trade processes across the world.
Hi, Tara! I enjoyed your example of how successful a country will be in their trade, such as Mexican fishermen being excluded from the dolphin free tuna situation. It is also interesting that Europe will not trade with the U.S. because of their GMO usage with food. Do you think this is a valid reason? Or do you think trading food with the U.S. could possibly benefit Europe?
I think this video illustrated the depths of trade that go beyond what is typically discussed such as job creation. I liked how she did not simply explain GAAT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and what it was, but first she set the world scene that was occurring at that time. GATT stemmed from a time when peace was not only desired but needed, after a time when countries were destroyed by the war. I think many people forget that this interdependence between countries caused by trade are still essential today to prevent wars from erupting because these countries need one another.
I think another concept that I will take with me going forward is that trade is not just about trade, it is about our global rules. By thinking about trade in this context, topics that can get highly complex or politically charged, once again just become topics – topics that we must address collectively and with a critical mindset to assess what creating rules around certain subjects will mean and whether that is the world we want to see. I think that having this mindset rather than a mindset simply focused on global efficiency, will allow us to create the best policies for a innovating and globalized world. It all goes back to GATT once again. Trade was not always about jobs, or economic efficiency, at one point trade was about global alignment – it was about an effort to write the global rules of what is and what is not accepted in society, about what we hope to see the world become.
I too appreciated the speaker setting the scene of how trade was initiated in the 1940s! I had no idea that the concept came to fruition as a strategy to avoid further wars after WWII. However, I do not think we saw trade and globalization preventing wars like GATT hoped it would, which is especially evident today. For example, trade has prompted war between nations through raising tariffs on each other’s imports and creating other trade barriers. Additionally, bilateral trade between Russia and Ukraine did not prevent the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. There are many other examples that I’m sure prompted the creation of the WTO and the ideas about trade today, creating global rules rather than global peace.
The most interesting part of this TED Talk to me was learning about how the modern era of trade came to be. The speaker began by saying that trade deals aren’t really about trade, which I didn’t fully understand until she further explained the idea of the GATT, or General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, signed in 1947. Trade started off on the basis of creating an economy that fosters world peace. The idea was that countries could not and would not want to go to war if they were dependent on each other for trade purposes. The GATT truly created globalization and outsourcing and was the basis of today’s era of trade. Trade is now based on making the economy as efficient as possible, which is why globalization is so important and beneficial. We previously learned about free trade, and if it is generally positive for the U.S. and other countries. I strongly believe that trade generally makes the economy more successful and builds relationships between countries.
I found this TED talk to be very interesting on how the GATT, or General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, played such a significant role in fostering international trade and economic growth, in the post-World War time period. The speaker mentions how the GATT’s primary goal was to promote international trade by reducing trade barriers like tariffs, and after it was first signed, the GDP grew by about seven percent in the following years which is pretty impressive. Also, it meant that if countries were interdependent on one another for trade they would not go to war on each other which was the confirmation countries needed postwar. In addition, the speaker addresses the fact that free trade agreements should really be about global prosperity, which is a perspective I have not looked at before. Because we live in such a globalized world, it is important to remain true to what trade’s purpose initially was, which was the GATT’s vision of global alignment.
This concept that trade today does not mean the same as it did in the 40’s intrigues me the most. Since the founding time, trade has transformed and been remade. She mentions at the beginning global trade came to be because everyone was focused on economic interdependence in hopes of world peace. The general agreement in tariffs and trade created globalization where the global GDP grew 7% at the time. Come the 90’s we rethought the motivations, trade then became motivated by global efficiency, and non-tariff barriers lead into the modern era of trade. As time went on we now realize that in reality, an interconnected global world is hard to fashion in a world with many different priorities. I think it is correct to assume efficiency may be the wrong aspect to focus on for global trade. Efficiency is achieved by automating everything to be the same, communication the same, performance the same, time management the same. Yet we live in a world where we all conduct our way of life in different ways. Efficiency truly is not a good framework for Global Trade. Through efficiency we loose sight of the many aspects that make up the globe, and that is individual economies, cultures, laws and practices. This individual aspect that we love creates the problem of domestic policies not aligning with global efficiency. This is where we run into the priority issue of how global trade means wether to promote the free movement of goods verse preserve individual economies and cultures. I find it cannot be considered Global trade unless you truly appreciate and accept the boundaries and guidelines of each culture, each economy and country offers its own sets of benefit for the global industry, thus it is about highlighting these unique characteristics not changing them. Global trade does not, and should not mean standardizing and assimilating everything to one way.
I found this TedTalk very interesting and appreciate the way it brought a new perspective to trade and allowed viewers to simplify what trade is and the effects it has on everyone involved. It changed the focal point of trade and free trade from employment and other economic influences and instead focused on national sovereignty. This perspective allowed me to understand both why trade is so important, but also why and how it is so complicated and how so many small parts come together to create a larger goal. The speaker put free trade into the terms of the rules of a game. The way the components of free trade were created is like making the rules of a game that the global economy is playing.
I accidentally posted before I was finished writing- The analogy of a game helped to simplify what free trade is and how it affects each player in the game. It was interesting to understand the deeper effects that the rules of free trade have on economies and the ways they influence how different countries interact with one another. This understanding helps to illustrate how trade helps increase productivity between countries but it can get complicated when it is also impacting the well-being of the country as well. Overall, considering free trade is a complicated topic, this TedTalk did a great job of simplifying all that goes into it and why countries take positions on certain topics.
I found this Ted Talk to be very interesting. Like many of my peers, the concept of shifting the perspective to understand trade deals more like rules rather than just trade is intriguing. In particular, breaking down the true meaning behind trade and how it can relate to global efficiency or even global prosperity seems like a methodical approach. Before watching this video, I was unaware of the history behind the GATT or the decision to want more economic independence. In theory, the thought process around countries depending on each other seems charming – especially when wanting to create world peace and prevent war. However, in reality, and as reinforced in the video, trade can be a very confusing concept. For instance, the mention of Europeans and Americans and GMO vs. non-GMO beef effectively displays how different countries have different levels of sovereignty and desires. This reminds me of many of our class conversations surrounding the NCTO, USFIA, CAFTA-DR, etc. At the core of these associations and agreements is the incessant need to create rules that best satisfy all parties involved; at the end of the day, countries usually want what’s best for them. Regardless, the concept of scarcity can play into this. That is, resources are limited which leads to the concept of “winners” and “losers.” In this case, I think it is interesting to consider the “rules of the game” that we live in. Perhaps shifting the perspective on trade to be more about global prosperity, equality, etc can spur new outlooks and conversations around globalization. Overall, the landscape for trade can continue to change, just like it did since the 1940’s.
This TED talk was very interesting and enlightening for me. I enjoyed how easily she broke it down because it helped me understand these complex, ever changing issues better. One part that stuck with me in particular is when she was discussing the disagreement between the US and Europe regarding genetically modified beef and she said “your domestic policies are not aligning with our sense of global efficiency”. It was very interesting to hear how trade has progressed throughout the 20th century and how there is an emphasis on ensuring that global efficiency is at the forefront of each countries mind for more productive trade. This quote made me question, how are countries able to localize in a globalized world? Does this threaten the rule of local government, especially in non-western nations that do not hold the same cultural ideals/ethics/priorities as Western nations? I believe that this will lead to much larger conflicts down the road because in the end, countries will act in their own individual interest before prioritizing the world as a whole. That presents the issue of every countries individual interest differing from that of their neighbors, so how do we ensure that there is a balance between coming together as one/sharing a common goal and ensuring that these individualistic characteristics are not lost in the process? I would love to ask the Ted Talk host that question if given the chance!
I found the explanation of how the current period of commerce came to be to be the most fascinating aspect of this TED Talk. I didn’t completely appreciate the speaker’s opening statement—that trade agreements aren’t actually about commerce—until she went on to discuss the GATT, or General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed in 1947. The original goal of trade was to establish an economy that promotes global peace. The premise was that if nations relied on one another for commerce, they could not and would not want to go to war. The foundation of today’s trading age was laid by the GATT, which really brought about outsourcing and globalization. Nowadays, the goal of trade is to maximize economic efficiency, which is why globalization is so significant and advantageous. Free trade and whether it benefits the United States and other nations generally were topics covered in prior lessons. I firmly think that commerce typically improves economic performance and strengthens international ties.
This TED talk really got me thinking about globalization over again and what we discussed in the beginning of the semester. As the speaker explained GATT and WTO were created to create of economic interdependency to end wars in the 40s. This boosted globalization and what we know as trade today. The speakers discussion on free trade and trade in general today has made me more firm in my opinion that globalization is bad. Upon creating this interdependency on countries for their resources we see how stronger countries like the US and UK and companies like those in technology or petrol are completely taking over countries and committing heinous crimes for corporate greed and all for the common goal of “global efficiency.” In Congo, we see a silent genocide happening where millions have been killed and displaced for the mining of their natural resources of cobalt, gold, etc. And then how Shell had gotten people murdered in Nigeria who were environmentalists.
I have the same question that the speaker posed, what does “global efficiency” mean? does it only apply to the developed nations and the developing nations have to be the ones to provide this “efficiency”? Larger governments have been inserting themselves in other nations for their own personal gain and benefit for the sake of globalization and trade for centuries.Who do the rules apply to and who will be enforcing them because as we’ve seen in the exploitation of the people in Congo, Sudan, Armenia, etc. for resources to make our electronics, while they starve is that true “global efficiency”?