Made on Earth: How Global Economic Integration Renders Trade Policy Obsolete (Trade Policy Analysis) 92%

By null null92%

12/1/2009, 9:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Indoctrination, and Biased Writer Voice, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 44.3% saturation with 222 hits. Analysis detected 1,454 faulty-reasoning hits from 501 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.6% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,929 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.20% of the article peer group.

During the past few decades, a truly global division of labor has emerged, presenting opportunities for specialization, collaboration, and exchange on scales once unimaginable. 
The confluence of falling trade and investment barriers, revolutions in communications and transportation, the opening of China to the West, the collapse of communism, and the disintegration of Cold War political barriers has spawned a highly integrated global economy with vast potential to produce greater wealth and higher living standards. 
The factory floor is no longer contained within four walls and one roof. 
Instead, it spans the globe through a continuum of production and supply chains, allowing lead firms to optimize investment and output decisions by matching production, assembly, and other functions to the locations best suited for those activities. 
Because of foreign direct investment, joint ventures, and other equity-sharing arrangements, quite often “we” are “they” and “they” are “we.” 
And because of the proliferation of disaggregated, transnational production and supply chains, “we” and “they” often collaborate in the same endeavor. 
In the 21st century, competition is more likely to occur between entities that defy national identification because they are truly international in their operations, creating products and services from value-added activities in multiple countries. 
There is competition between supply chains, but only after there is cooperation and collaboration within supply chains. 
But trade and investment policy has not kept pace with these remarkable changes in commercial reality. 
Our globally integrated economy requires policies that are welcoming of imports and foreign investment and that minimize regulations or administrative frictions based on misconceptions about some vague or ill-defined “national interest.” 
To nurture the promise of our highly integrated global economy, governments should commit to policies that reduce frictions throughout the supply chain–from product conception to consumption–as well as in the flow of services, investment, and human capital. 
During the past few decades, a truly global division of labor has emerged, presenting opportunities for specialization, collaboration, and exchange on scales once unimaginable. 
The confluence of falling trade and investment barriers, revolutions in communications and transportation, the opening of China to the West, the collapse of communism, and the disintegration of Cold War political barriers has spawned a highly integrated global economy with vast potential to produce greater wealth and higher living standards. 
But trade and investment policy has not kept pace with these remarkable changes in commercial reality. 
Our globally integrated economy requires policies that are welcoming of imports and foreign investment and that minimize regulations or administrative frictions based on misconceptions about some vague or ill-defined “national interest.” 
To nurture the promise of our highly integrated global economy, governments should commit to policies that reduce frictions throughout the supply chain–from product conception to consumption–as well as in the flow of services, investment, and human capital. 
Daniel Ikenson is associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Antidumping Exposed: The Devilish Details of Unfair Trade Law (2003). 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%null null: 9.7%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%null null: 6.4%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 6.8%null null: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic6.8%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%null null: 11.3%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias7.4%This article: 32.3%null null: 13.7%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect32.3%This article: 0.0%null null: 3.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 44.3%null null: 8.2%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias44.3%This article: 0.0%null null: 4.4%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%null null: 8.8%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%null null: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%null null: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%null null: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 12.4%null null: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 4.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.8%null null: 5.7%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority5.8%This article: 14.8%null null: 9.9%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma14.8%This article: 0.0%null null: 5.0%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.4%null null: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.4%This article: 13.2%null null: 15.2%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization13.2%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 19.2%null null: 6.0%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question19.2%This article: 20.0%null null: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.4%null null: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division7.4%This article: 0.0%null null: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.6%null null: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.6%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 2.6%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.8%null null: 16.2%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice22.8%This article: 27.1%null null: 12.7%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination27.1%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 13.7%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%null null: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.8%

501 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.8%attributed speech472writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageDaniel Ikenson • 29 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daniel Ikenson

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words100% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Daniel Ikenson: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-28.8 ptsWriter: 28.8%Daniel Ikenson: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.2 ptsWriter: 24.2%Daniel Ikenson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.