{"id":618,"date":"2005-09-24T12:51:37","date_gmt":"2005-09-24T16:51:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.eprup.com\/ica\/?p=618"},"modified":"2023-06-14T18:09:15","modified_gmt":"2023-06-14T22:09:15","slug":"open-markets-india-china-america-trade-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.icainstitute.org\/roundtable-discussions\/open-markets-india-china-america-trade-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Markets?: India, China and America Trade Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary of ICA Institute Study Group held on September 24, 2005
\nYear published: 2005<\/p>\n

Discussion leader:
\nDr. Penelope Prime, Director China Research Center, Kennesaw State University Kennesaw, GA USA<\/p>\n

The Current Situation<\/h3>\n

After the Cold War, private capital flow replaced official development assistance as the main form of capital transfer around the world. There is increasing demand for primary products: China and India have made normally inelastic price commodities like farm produce attractive again because of their huge populations and rapidly growing economies. There is also high mobility of labor and capital. There is wage pressure on the U.S. middle class because China and India present cheap labor options that are attractive to U.S. companies, who would rather outsource than pay higher wages at home.<\/p>\n

U.S.- Trade Deficit<\/h3>\n

The panel agreed that trade deficit is not always a bad thing. However, if the U.S. trade balance continues to increase as a percentage of GDP, it may not be sustainable.<\/p>\n

The panel discussed timing as an interesting insight into U.S. trade deficits. Something significant could have happened in the mid-1990s because that is when the deficit started growing exponentially. The panel discussed factors possibly causing this:<\/p>\n