Reflection: Simulations and more

I feel that our simulation this week was an interesting experience, as it gave us more insight into a pertinent issue facing the economic conditions of the United States, especially as there is need for economic transition as the recession comes to an end. I'll admit: I'm a liberal, and I'm proud of it. My grandmother worked for GM as a member of the UAW for 35 years. Up until now, I felt that tariffs were the right answer when it comes to trade in the automotive economy. To an extent, I still do, but after this simulation I certainly see the other side of the argument. I'm sure that this was the underlying purpose entirely of the project.

I think that all the groups did a great job in presenting their arguments clearly. As I saw in their videos and presentations, I feel that their was a clear reflection in these seemingly simple presentations to the complex world of IR theory. It seemed that our group (GM), along with the consumer group seemed to represent the liberalism school, as we supported an international approach to trade, opening up previous barriers; the UAW and to a lesser extent the foreign auto manufacturers represented realism, as they felt that there needs to be a greater effort on the part of the US to balance the rising economic power of rapidly developing nations like China, while the Sierra Club represented constructivism, as they would generally feel that there should be a greater influence of international organizations to protect the perspective of trade practices, and thus protect the environment, using a non-governmental approach to deal with this issue, but having nations enter into a social contract like the Kyoto Protocol, etc. It just was very interesting to see how clear the ideas of international relations are exhibited in such a minor college project.

I feel, however that our "president" did not see our side of the argument within the same scope we had hoped he would. The president felt that our side of the argument, reducing or eliminating the tariff, didn't do enough to convince him that our side would be incontrovertibly beneficial to the American economy. While I feel that we made a convincing and persuasive argument, I'd just like to say that it's important to note that it would cost more money to keep increasingly antiquated jobs than to let structural unemployment take its course and have American workers find new jobs in areas where America has a comparative advantage in trade. It's not worth paying 225,000 dollars for every job saved when these workers are making significantly less than that. We probably should have brought that up, especially as a rebuttal to the captivating video of the UAW group (I certainly regret being in that video :P).

Also, since when is Italy a third-world country?