The following three essays were written by Collin students from professor Jaime Jordan's fall English 1301 class. The assignment was to write an argument on any topic of their choice and perform research to gain evidence to back up each point of view. The essays chosen to be published in Cougar News were the papers that had improved most from rough draft to final draft and contained a higher quality of the research and writing.

****

Nicotine Should be Banned
By Guy Yater 

Society’s burden of tobacco related diseases would be greatly reduced by classifying the drug nicotine a banned substance and subsequently removing it from cigarettes.

Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. It provides instant gratification to the addict yet it only has mild and arguably beneficial psychological effects. The tobacco companies have certainly used this fact as leverage against the consumer in removing the ability to freely decide whether or not to buy another tobacco product. Nicotine’s effect on the user drives him or her to use the product again to get the “next fix” in the addiction cycle, for which a dear price is usually paid – “one in four users pay with their life” (Kluger 416).

Accordingly, control of the delivery of nicotine should be wrenched from the hands of those who profit from it and given to those whose interests are in protecting the public’s health. The U.S. Government should re-classify nicotine as a controlled substance and tobacco companies should be allowed to sell their products only under the condition those products are proven free of the addictive drug nicotine. Nicotine was isolated as the active ingredient in tobacco in 1828 by two French scientists. They named it after Jean Nicot, France’s Ambassador to Portugal, who wrote to Paris in 1560 purporting tobacco’s curative powers, as evidenced by the curing of his relative’s ulcer under advice from the court physicians of Portugal. Within two generations, tobacco was widely accepted as an antitoxin and disinfectant (Mollenkamp 247).

Certainly, addicts who partake in the habit encounter physiological effects of the mind and body that they perceive as rewarding. Explicitly, when cigarette smoke is inhaled into the body, a sequence of effects immediately begins to take place from the nicotine within the smoke: The nicotine first stimulates sensory nerve endings embedded in the vicinity of the millions of air sacs of the lungs. Within seconds this stimulation produces a powerful reflex effect consisting of a brief, abrupt fall in heart rate and blood pressure (soon followed by opposite effects); a generalized relaxation of the body musculature; and a simultaneous arousal of the brain. The combination of physical relaxation and comfort, combined with mental alertness, is the unique characteristic of nicotine and is the source of the described “Rush” that the smoker feels and seeks. (Whelan 112)

The next effect on the body by nicotine requires some explanation of the human body’s nervous system in order to understand. Nerve cells form a body wide communication system. When chemically charged, a nerve cell sends an electrical charge down its length to a fibrous extension where it “jumps the gap” to the next nerve cell. This “gap” is called a synapse. In order for the electrical charge to jump the gap it must first be converted into a chemical compound called a neurotransmitter.

Once emitted, the neurotransmitter bonds chemically with the next cell in a specific way due to its chemical makeup and how it “fits” into one of the receiving points, called receptors, on the next cell. This triggers a reaction specific to the type of receptor it fits: if the receiving nerve cell is the same kind as the transmitting one then the message passes along to the next one unchanged. Once the message reaches its destination reactions start to occur that cause changes in the body based upon the original message. The human body produces one type of neurotransmitter called acetylcholine (ACT). ACT’s main purpose is to stimulate the nervous system so that it responds better at carrying other messages, via other neurotransmitters. ACT also sends a message to the kidneys to release adrenalin. Nicotine imitates ACT and causes the release of adrenalin which stimulates the muscle and circulatory systems. This raises the heartbeat rate and blood pressure (Kluger 415).

Also, as with ACT, dopamine is released by the receptor which stimulates the brains pleasure center (Pringle 84). This process meets the definition of a stimulant. One key difference between ACT and nicotine is the way they affect the receiving nerve cell. With ACT, once the receiving nerve cell has reacted to the reception of ACT immediately frees the ACT compound which is then reabsorbed by the transmitting nerve cell, thus clearing the connection for further use (Kluger 415).

Conversely, nicotine forms a much stronger and longer lasting bond, which causes it to be held onto by the receiving nerve cell. Though this is readily cleared away when affected by small doses of nicotine, larger doses tend to clog the receptors which cause a reversal of the stimulant effect by slowing muscular activity, the heart in particular, and causing a drop in delivery of oxygen to the body and brain – in short, causing a sedative effect. Scientists speculate that smokers consciously or subconsciously vary their nicotine dosage throughout the day to meet the differing demands on them (Kluger 415-416).

Consequently, the brain adapts to these blocked reception sites by generating more reception sites. When the nicotine eventually unblocks these sites, there are more sites than normal available and the result is over-stimulation, which causes a person to become irritable and cranky. This can be defined as nicotine withdrawal (Pringle 84).

The smoker is now required to continue smoking, and to find the balance that works best, in order to maintain a feeling of normalcy when compared to a non-smoker. According to a Phillip Morris research memo, “Smoke is beyond question the most optimized vehicle of nicotine and the cigarette the most optimized dispenser of smoke” (Pringle 106). Consequently, there are approximately fifty million tobacco customers in the United States today, most of who smoke cigarettes. Smoking has been proven to be the main cause of lung cancer; a major contributor to heart disease; and leads to ninety percent of all cases of emphysema (Whelan 6). Furthermore, lung cancer rates have increased dramatically in the last sixty years and show a close association with the increase in the number of cigarettes smoked (Whelan 8). The biggest smoking related killer is lung cancer, which is second only to heart disease as the leading cause of death in the United States. Accordingly, the U.S. Surgeon General has called smoking “the most important of the known modifiable risk factors in {heart disease}” (Whelan 26).

Each year nearly 200,000, or one-fifth, of all heart disease related deaths are caused by smoking cigarettes. Mounting evidence shows that smoking increases a person’s risk for developing several types of heart disease. Contrary to popular belief, smoking even a few cigarettes per day increases that risk (Whelan 26).

When combining the detrimental effects of smoking on the human body with the addictive properties of nicotine, a danger comparable to no other is presented to society. Collectively, smoking related deaths are the biggest single cause of death in the United States. Masses of smokers are enslaved to smoking cigarettes in order to retain the feeling of relaxation which is deprived them by the physiological effects caused by nicotine itself! During the beginning of America’s love affair with tobacco, smoking cigarettes was considered a second rate method of enjoyment for tobacco. This changed during the American Civil War. Before the Civil War the preferred method of enjoyment of tobacco was to chew it. This was because tobacco smoke, which was highly alkaline in nature and readily absorbed by the membranes in the mouth and throat, triggered a reflex rejection in the form of a cough. This prevented inhalation of the smoke. Therefore, nicotine had to be absorbed through the oral membranes. This absorption was slow and modest, with the nicotine being metabolized without any remarkable effect on the internal tissues (Kluger 6).

By contrast, a new form of tobacco was produced called Bright Leaf. Bright Leaf’s main quality was its high acidity which did not interact with the membranes of the mouth and throat, allowing it to be smoked without the usual coughing caused by any of the previous varieties. Now the smoke could be inhaled, which changed everything. The intricate pathways of the lungs allow for a several hundredfold increase in the absorption rate when compared to the mouth. As a result, far more nicotine was absorbed into the blood, momentarily suffusing an entire cross section of the bloodstream (Kluger 6).

In other words, nicotine addiction had found a stronghold in its invasion upon the American public. During the Civil War “with neither time nor money for pipes or cigars, soldiers liked the quick narcotic kick of the mild, inhalable little smokes now being made from Bright Leaf ... prone to imitate their colleagues in wartime misery, more and more tried the cigarette and found it pleasing. For the first time Americans begin to think of it as something more than a poor substitute for the real thing” (Kluger 17).

As America matured through the industrial age, the cigarette quickly became considered as a mainstream part of Americans' lives. Huge tobacco companies amassed power and money riding on the back of this huge wave of nicotine addiction, which was now fully entrenched amidst the nation’s populace. The big tobacco companies rose to the top of industrial America on the back of this beast while the nation, indeed the entire world, became addicted to nicotine. At that time tobacco companies, enjoying the immense popularity of their product, were not yet aware of the grip nicotine had upon the human psyche. However, tobacco companies’ research, which began in the 1950’s to counterattack new reports that there was something very unhealthy about cigarette smoking, began to uncover that there was indeed an explanation for the popularity of their product: nicotine is highly addictive. Funded by the huge capitol reserves of the largest tobacco companies, their own research laboratories incessantly unlocked the secrets of tobacco smoke. The more the tobacco companies learned about their product, the more lawyers they hired. Indeed, tobacco companies were among the first to realize that tobacco is addictive. One memo from lead attorney Addison Yeaman, speaking to a research conference in Britain in July 1963 on behalf of a major tobacco company, Brown & Williamson, reads: “Scientists now say that tobacco not only has tranquilizing effects, but unique tranquilizing effects. It works more broadly and mildly than what the pharmaceutical companies have come up with. Moreover, nicotine is addictive. We are in the business, then, of selling nicotine, an addictive drug” (Mollenkamp 40).

The lawyers never allowed this information to be released to the public. Certainly it was the tobacco companies’ moral responsibility to divulge this information to the public. Yet, they took the stance that there was nothing unhealthy about smoking cigarettes and have since fought a two-faced battle: one facet focused on the health issue of smoking and whether or not it is truly causal in so many deaths; the other facet focused on the consistent denial of the addictiveness of nicotine. The health issue was the subject of intense research and development at the tobacco companies’ laboratories. The tobacco companies always seemed to stay a step ahead of the questions raised by outside consortiums of independent research groups by implementing new and improved cigarettes to counter reports of the ill effects of tobacco smoke. However, the health issue was simply a smoke screen laid out by the tobacco companies to hide the real issue: cigarettes are vehicles for passing along the highly addictive drug nicotine. So effective has the ruse been that almost 25 years passed between the time when tobacco companies realized nicotine was addictive and an official announcement was made by any American government authority stating this fact. U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop boldly stated in his yearly report in 1988 that nicotine was addictive and that the “pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroine and cocaine” (Pringle 87).

The pressure to tell the whole truth was turned up on the tobacco companies that day, and has been ever since. The tobacco industry knew for years that they were marketing a highly addictive drug, and the public began to find out about it. Whistleblowers, lawsuits, and subpoenaed documents brought to light the extent to which tobacco companies exploited the addictiveness of nicotine. To begin with, tobacco companies took strides to decrease some of the ill effects of smoking, all the while ensuring that nicotine levels were kept at optimum levels. Tobacco companies introduced additives such as ammonia to increase the efficiency of the body’s absorption of nicotine. One tobacco company blender’s notebook reads: “ammonia can act as an impact booster . . . ammonia technology will deliver more flavor compounds, including nicotine, into smoke than one without it” (Pringle 112).

Also, a new tobacco plant, dubbed Y1 in the late 1970s, produced more than twice the nicotine levels of common tobacco plants. The developer, tobacco company Brown & Williamson, protected the product in hidden overseas patents and grew it offshore, in Brazil, as a way of circumventing the scrutiny of both the industry and the public (Pringle 108).

Actions such as these made it readily apparent that nicotine was the primary focus of the tobacco companies for marketing their product to the public. U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop’s 1988 declaration that nicotine is an addictive drug set into motion an eye opening era for the public. Congress began limiting the marketplaces available for cigarette advertisements. Tobacco companies watched their sales begin to drop. Then, on April 14, 1994, the tobacco companies epitomized the lies they were willing to tell for the sake of selling their product. Seven tobacco company executives, each representing a different tobacco company and four of whom were chief executive officers, appeared before Congress, raised their right hands, and swore that nicotine is not addictive (Mollenkamp 50).

Concurrently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was attempting to show that tobacco companies were delivering a drug “intended to affect the structure or function of the body of man or animals.” If given this legal definition, the law would allow the FDA to regulate tobacco as a medical device intended for the distribution of a drug (Pringle 174).

Also, several states brought lawsuits against the tobacco companies to recover monies spent battling smoke related illnesses of people within their respective states. Hence the tobacco companies pitched a fervent battle in the courts to hold back the ebbing tide which had carried them so far. In the past Congress performed such helpful steps for the tobacco industry as excluding tobacco products from the 1975 Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) and including an exception for tobacco in the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which empowered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate chemical substances that might pose a threat to health. Now Congress began to take a stance before the tobacco companies demanding accountability for the detrimental effects of their product (Pringle 175).

Tobacco companies lost the leash on the nicotine beast and were furiously grasping for it. Meanwhile, rulings in favor of the FDA regulating tobacco as a drug delivery device were passed in April 1997 when a U.S. District judge sided with the FDA (Mollenkamp 254).

Tobacco companies appealed and the subsequent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court was that the FDA lacked the authority to regulate tobacco. Alas, tobacco companies recovered the leash. Today, the FDA is fighting the correct war, but perhaps they need to change battles. There can be no doubt that nicotine is addictive and that it is delivered in a deadly manner. In fact, no other products sold in America, save guns, are as deadly when used as the manufacturer intended. Nicotine is regulated by the FDA as a drug when delivered by nicotine patches or gum, but cigarettes are not considered a drug delivery device. Having lost that battle, the FDA should take steps to have nicotine listed as a controlled substance. Tobacco companies have shown that they are not trustworthy with the responsibility of ensuring smokers’ best health interests. If the FDA cannot regulate America’s biggest killer, the drug nicotine, then the responsibility should shift to an agency that can, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Currently, the Controlled Substance Act expressly excludes tobacco as a controlled substance. Removal of this clause would empower Congress to place a ban on nicotine, enabling the DEA regulatory powers over the production of tobacco. In essence, all shelters for the tobacco companies created by Congress should be immediately rescinded. Tobacco companies have proven to have never acted in good faith, and any privileges acquired under those pretenses should therefore be nullified. Tobacco companies should be forced to remove nicotine from their products. In fact Phillip Morris has, in the past, marketed a nicotine free cigarette called Next (Pringle 105).

The final analysis shows that nicotine should not be marketed freely to the American public, especially under the guise that it is the smoker’s freedom of choice to smoke cigarettes. The true freedom in that decision has been forestalled by the lies of the tobacco companies. Only after removing the drug nicotine from the equation can the smoker make a true choice on whether or not to continue purchasing tobacco related products, thereby impacting America’s largest killer – smoking. One role of the United States Government is to step in and protect consumers from a product that could risk their health and lives. Now is the time for the Government to take control of the nicotine addiction. Labeling the drug nicotine a controlled substance and banning it from all tobacco products should be the next step.

****

Liver Transplants
By Karina Kinnear 

Scientists have been doing research for decades on new procedures and medicines to help those in society overcome certain illnesses. There are several illnesses that cause an organ to fail, such as Hepatitis C, HIV, Cancer and additional diseases concerning the survival of the immune system. Organ transplants are commonly used to sustain the recipient’s life. Worldwide, the need for liver transplants is on the rise. These procedures need to be made more cost effective, less discriminative and high cost medications should be made available for the less fortunate.

The United States and neighboring countries have formed a coalition for organ donations, called the United Networks for Organ Sharing (UNOS). This worldwide network is to assist in saving human lives in need of an operating organ. Currently there are 90,416 candidates awaiting a possible organ transplant. 72,954 are residents of the United States (“Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network”). The financial backing it takes to correlate and prosecute such procedures are substantially high. View Figure 1 for total liver transplants performed in the United States by year and ethnical background ( American Liver Foundation).

The average cost of a liver transplant could hinder family members between $30,000 and $700,000 dollars according to Canada’s leading Medical journal CMAJ (Sullivan).

The following determine whether or not one can qualify for a liver transplant: Alcohol abuse, cancer, advanced heart and/or lung disease, HIV infections and associated brain injury due to the fluid build up from the damaged liver (“Liver Transplants”).

The scale used in determining a good candidate for liver organ transplants is theoretically fair and balanced, but in reality distribution is not equal. Questions of ethical use of power, money and fame became apparent when Mickey Mantel received a liver transplant in 1995 after a short time on the waiting list (Askari). Mickey Mantel is known for his alcohol abuse, as is actor Larry Hagman who underwent a liver transplant in 1995 due to his abuse of alcohol (”Larry Hagman”).

These are just two case facts that have been openly admitted by the liver recipients themselves. The chances of two famous people getting a liver transplant in the same year flags suspicious odds. The question of fair distribution of liver transplants is more common than expected. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center has been accused of wrongly overlooking possible candidates at the Veterans Affair Hospital in Oakland. Brenda Salvas, a manager of the liver and kidney transplant program for the VA in Washington, questioned sending working organs to Pittsburgh Medical Center. In the line of questioning, the explanations given were simple and politically correct. The thirty or so skipped on the liver transplant list from the VA were not good matches for the organ transplant (Snowbeck).

The controversy over the fairness given to those on the waiting list is still being debated. Unfortunately there is no guarantee how long a person waits for a working organ. The organ transplant must match the blood type of the recipient in hopes that not only the match is successful, but the liver does not reject the organ. Rare blood types as AB can shorten the waiting period, but those with the most common blood types as type A, O and B typically have longer time intervals due to the popular demand of their particular blood type. The wait for an organ could range from months to years, these organs are from deceased individuals that may have passed on from an unfortunate accident. The grieving families of the recently departed are to make the decision whether or not to release the working organ. People who hold fame, money and power have repeatedly used these factors in gaining their selfish need and walking on the less fortunate. The military does not discriminate against fame or fortune, but it holds the power to make sure those who are serving or have served get the proper medical care. The large sign reads “Be All You Can Be.” It does not say “You Will Be Forgotten When You Can No Longer Perform Your Duties.” When does the government claim responsibility for actions taken by its military? The military denies any knowledge of Hepatitis C in the Vietnam War. This is factual considering this disease was not discovered until 1989 (Askari). The number of soldiers after Vietnam who contracted Hepatitis C are well in the age range provided in Figure 2 (American Liver Foundation). Denying any responsibility due to ignorance of this virus is cruel and unacceptable. The conditions that our soldiers were introduced to in Vietnam may have captured more than political obscurities. Retired Staff Sergeant Davidson was stationed in three different locations during the war against the North Vietcong. He was stationed in Like and Thunder three which was in South Vietnam and DaNang in North Vietnam (Davidson). In an interview with retired Staff Sergeant Davidson of the U.S. Army these founding facts have truth and we should question our government’s denial for assisting those that have fought to protect Americans rights to their freedoms. Staff Sergeant Davidson spent two terms in Vietnam from 1968-1971; he was trained in Special Forces, Para trooping, and was a respected Platoon leader (Davidson, 2005).

During Mr. Davidson’s two tours in Vietnam he sustained injuries from a Claymore mine, shrapnel and a near fatal stab wound in the stomach. He received two blood transfusions out in the field among his fellow brothers of war. No questions were asked from this faithful man of war, but just to know that he was doing what his country asked of him. During this time of blood transfusions they did not test for Hepatitis C. Unfortunately Mr. Davidson now has Hepatitis C and is currently doing his medical treatments to determine if he can qualify for a liver transplant. The question that weighs heavily on this retired soldier’s mind is not whether or not he wants to live, but how many generations will be financially responsible for what life he may have left. The graph shows age groups of performed transplants and 49% of these were of the enlisted age of the Vietnam war.

Since the discovery of Hepatitis C in 1989, research scientists have maintained a steady pace to find a cure to subside this infectious strand. This disease attacks the liver making its functions difficult and deadly. Currently with infectious treatments, a household income can be cursed to lose thousands of dollars a month; even with insurance coverage the amount left over is greatly damaging. The government does not recognize the thousands that have caught Hepatitis C during blood transfusions in Vietnam. Specialists have prescribed treatment drugs that help maintain the immune System: Interferon, ribavirin and nutritional efforts (Askari).

The Interferon is a copy of a protein found in low levels in the human body it is known for an immune regulatory and anti-inflammatory (Tilg).

The Ribavirin brings down liver enzymes but it has shown less positive results than the Interferon (Hepatitis-Central).

The cost for Alpha Interferon is $2000 a shot and the Ribavirin tablets are $263. These treatments are not cures, but another method to sustain someone until his number comes up on the organ transplant waiting list. There is no guarantee for anyone waiting on the transplant list. The lives of these unfortunate souls are in the hands of a miracle. The chances of a liver transplant is comparable to winning the lottery. The efforts of our medical experts are to be recognized and appreciated by those awaiting some miracle cure, but this does not give a reason for placing a price on any human life. Struggles of our society as a whole do not give those with power the right to determine whose life is more precious than the next. The hardships that we have had to endure to maintain the cost of freedom in this country should give rise to a government that recognizes those faithful to the stars and stripes.

There is a loss of patriotism in this country and this may be due to the failure of our country as a whole. Every voice should be heard, every American should exercise his or her responsibility for those who are being unjustly passed over during their wait for survival.

Works Cited

Askari, Fred. Hepatitis C The Epidemic. New York: N.Y. 1999.

Davidson, Jeffery. Personal interview. 24, Nov. 2005.

Hepatitis C Information Center. Hepatitis-Central. 3 Dec. 2005.

“Larry Hagman.” Famous Texans on the web. 3 Dec. 2005 .

Lawerence W. Wat and Gerad M. Doherty. Current Surgical Diagnosis & Treatment. 11th ed. New York N.Y. 2003.

Liver Foundation .org. The American Liver Foundation. 2003. 17 Nov. 2005 .

“Liver transplants.” eMedicine Consumer Health on line. 10 Aug. 2005. 17 Nov. 2005.

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. United Network for Organ Sharing. 18 Nov. 2005. 24 Nov. 2005.

Snowbeck, Christopher. “VA questions UPMC on liver transplants.” Post-Gazette.com. 1 Oct. 2003. 3 Dec. 2005 < www.postgazette.com/pg/03274/227515.stm>.

Sullivan, Patrick. “Cost of Liver Transplants Varies Widely.” CMAJ Canada’s Medical Journal on the web. 17 Nov. 2005. 4 Dec. 2002.

Tilg, H. “What is Interferon.” Gastroenterology 112: 1017-1021 1997. 3 Dec. 2005 .

****

Globalization Is Detrimental to America’s Economy
By Ronald Howell

A global economic transformation is underway that is affecting all Americans, especially college students (Friedman 3). Multinational corporations shifting research, technology, legal, medical, and financial jobs to cheaper foreign labor markets have college students reconsidering their major fields of study and career goals. This new trend, called globalization, is justified by multinational corporations as a cost reduction measure to remain competitive in a global marketplace. However, others contend Multinational Corporations are attempting to become more profitable at the expense of American jobs. By misunderstanding the law of comparative advantage, forcing American wages lower, and exploiting cheap foreign labor markets, Multination Corporations are demonstrating why Globalization is detrimental to America’s economy. Gregory Mankiw, President George W. Bush’s lead economic advisor, believes that multinational corporations moving American jobs to cheaper foreign labor markets will not adversely affect the American economy (Drezner 22).

He sites the law of comparative advantage, which states that it is mutually beneficial for two countries to trade, even though one country provides a product or service much cheaper than the other does. Jobs lost in one sector of the economy will cause a reallocation of resources to a more profitable sector, according to the theory. The law of comparative advantage only works when trade between two countries are in balance (Dobbs 106). America’s trade deficit is presently at record highs (Dobbs 29).

During the 1970s and 1980s, companies began relocating their manufacturing capability to lower wage and non-unionized southern states as a cost reduction measure. The law of comparative advantage worked well in this case because the American economy still benefited from the tax base these jobs provided and southern states exported products sold in the north (Dobbs 48). However, Multinational Corporations relocating their manufacturing capability to cheaper foreign labor markets is detrimental to the American economy because jobs and tax revenue are lost forever. Consumers in these foreign markets usually cannot afford American products or their governments prohibit American imports. Multinational Corporations appear more concerned with their own profitability, rather than the well-being of the American economy. Another popular argument for globalization is that American consumers are demanding lower prices (Friedman 129).

Large multinational corporations are finding cheaper labor markets in China, Indonesia, and India, and then relocating entire portions of their supply chain there. This supply chain optimization, referred to as global outsourcing, always results in dramatically lower production costs for the Multinational Corporation and cheaper prices for consumers. However, these cheaper prices come at a cost to the American economy. When global outsourcing occurs, the American supplier, formerly part of the multinational corporation’s supply chain, usually fails. Employees who have lost their jobs often find it difficult to find employment at the same salary and benefit level, which results in more downward pressure on prices. This destructive pattern, called the race to the bottom, will have devastating effects on the American economy (Dobbs 32).

Lou Dobbs, author of the book Exporting America, believes the race to the bottom will eliminate the American middle class. American government officials believe that globalization and global outsourcing have important political benefits (Drezner 22).

These officials believe it is politically prudent to reward its allies with lucrative outsourcing agreements. Doing so encourages America’s allies to reduce their trade barriers to American goods and services, increase their investment in American businesses, and makes them more likely to adopt democratic reforms. The American government also argues that globalization is a stabilizing force in the world. Countries that are economically interdependent on America are less likely to support military action against it. However, one of the most common reasons a multinational corporation decides to outsource jobs to a foreign labor market is the lack of environmental regulations in the host country (Dobbs).

These countries often lack laws protecting workers’ safety, prohibiting child labor, or requiring a minimum wage. Multinational corporations exploit this fact by creating low wage jobs, when compared to the equivalent American job, with no fringe benefits. This practice exploits the work force in the host country. Multinational Corporations defend their actions by claiming their payroll is comparable to other companies in the region. Many believe that the American government needs to play a more active role ensuring that multinational corporations outsource jobs, while simultaneously exporting American values. Globalization is not beneficial to the American economy in its present form. Global outsourcing has already affected a huge portion of the manufacturing sector and a good portion of the technology sector by relocating jobs to cheaper foreign labor markets. The law of comparative advantage is not valid largely because of America’s large trade deficit. Consumers’ desire for lower priced goods and services are a normal economic component but multinational corporations are accelerating these desires in a race to the bottom, which will result in an overall lowering of American wages.

While there may be political benefits for America and economic benefits for foreign economies in the short term, many countries will eventually recognize the exploitation of their environments and work force. When this happens, the backlash against America will be economically crippling. America’s government must pass legislation to regulate Globalization, and limit its adverse effects on the American economy. It is critical that this legislation support balanced trade, and eliminate America’s enormous trade deficit. These recommendations are common sense rather than protectionist. Globalization devoid of fair, free, and balanced trade is detrimental to America’s economy.