Human Rights

Win win policy refers to public policy that is capable of achieving both conservative and liberal goals simultaneously. Examples could be given from any field of public policy, such as economic, social, environmental, legal, or political policy. Win win policies should be distinguished from compromises, where both sides partially retreat from achieving their goals in order to obtain an agreement.

Win win policy is sometimes referred to as super optimizing policy. The concept of win win means all major sides win, but the concept of winning can be ambiguous. If each side does some winning and some losing, that is sometimes called a win win solution, but it is really a traditional compromise with a glorifying name. In the context of this article, win win means all major sides win beyond their best initial expectations. Going beyond the best is what is meant by super optimum.

Thus if there are two sides and their best expectations are 90 profit units apiece, then a win win solution means each side achieves beyond 90 profit units. A lose lose solution means they each achieve a net loss or a negative profit. A win lose solution means one side takes profits, and the other side takes losses. A compromise might involve one side taking 70 profit units, and the other side taking 60 units. In that sense, they both won, but not ahead of their best initial expectations of 90 units each.

As a concrete example, the field of environmental policy involves conservative and liberal approaches. Conservatives emphasize the role of consumers and the marketplace in restraining business from engaging in socially undesirable activities, like pollution. The liberals emphasize the role of the government in restraining pollution. Conservatives are especially interested in the goal of economic development, which may be interfered with by government restraints. Liberals are especially interested in the goal of a clean environment, which may not be so effectively achieved by relying on selective consumer buying.

A neutral compromise approach might involved giving business firms partial subsidies to adopt anti pollution devices. Doing so would involve some requirements for receiving the subsidies, but less interference than regulations and fines. Doing so would help promote a cleaner environment, but there might still be evasions by business in view of the extra expense and trouble in complying.

A win win policy alternative might instead emphasize subsidies to universities and research firms to develop new processes (that relate to manufacturing, transportation, energy, and agriculture) which are both less expensive and cleaner than the old processes. Those new processes would then be adopted by business firms because they are more profitable, not because the firms are being forced or subsidized to do so.

The new processes would thus achieve the conservative goals of profits and economic development, even better than retaining the present marketplace. Such a win win policy would also promote the liberal goal of a cleaner environment, even better than a system of regulation, and without the expense of a continuing subsidy for adopting and renewing anti pollution devices.

A specific example of such an environmental win win policy has been finding a substitute for aerosol propellants and air conditioning freon that is more profitable to manufacturers and simultaneously less harmful to the ozone layer, which protects against skin cancer. Another specific example is developing an electric car, which saves money on gasoline and maintenance, while at the same time not generating the exhaust pollution of internal combustion cars. Developing hydrogen fusion or solar energy may also be an example of a less expensive and cleaner fuel for manufacturing processes.

Win win policies may be capable of achieving both conservative and liberal goals in theory, but not in practice. To be meaningful policies, they may have to satisfy various kinds of feasibility. For example, is the policy of developing solar energy for manufacturing technologically feasible? Is there sufficient funding available to subsidize the needed research if the private sector is not so willing, due to the risks, the large amount of money needed, or the long wait before payoffs occur?

Is there insurmountable political opposition from liberals who do not like government subsidies to make business more profitable? What about the opposition from conservatives who do not like government involvement in developing a research agenda? Is the program administratively feasible in terms of built in incentives, or does it require a lot of obtrusive monitoring? Does the program violate some constitutional rights? Does the program make provision for workers and firms that might be displaced if the policy is adopted?

Win win policies may involve creativity, but developing them is becoming easier as a result of experience with the ideas. We now have many different approaches that can serve as a checklist in leading one to a win win policy. For example, expanding the resources available can enable conservatives to have more money for defense, and liberals to have more money for domestic programs. The government can sometimes be a third party benefactor in providing vouchers to enable both landlords and tenants, and also merchants and consumers to come out ahead.

One can also deal with problems like abortion by getting at the causes. They consist of unwanted pregnancies that could be lessened through more effective abstinence programs and birth control. Thinking in terms of the goals to be achieved, rather than the alternatives to choose among, can stimulate win win policies. So can thinking in terms of increasing benefits and decreasing costs.

Other approaches deal with early socialization of widely accepted values, technological fixes like the non polluting hairspray, and the contracting out of government activities to private firms (which do well as a result of both the profit motive and quality specifications in the contract). Further approaches may involve combining (rather than compromising) alternatives, developing a package with something for each major viewpoint, having international economic communities, adopting a gradual or incremental win win policy, and arranging for big benefits on one side with small costs on the other.

ISSUES	CONSERVATIVE	LIBERAL	NEUTRAL	SUPER-OPTIMUM
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS	G. Business profits A. Decrease government regulations	G. Labor & consumers A1. Lower tariffs A2. Antitrust action A3. Labor-management teamwork	G. International competitiveness A. Keep as is	G. Government investment in technology diffusion and upgrading of skills
TARIFF HEIGHT	G. High businesses A1. Pro-business conservatives, high tariffs A2. Free world market conservatives, low tariffs	G. High wages A1. Pro-union liberals, high tariffs A2. Internationalist liberals, low tariffs	G1. Low prices G2. Low Taxes A. Middling tariffs	G. Well-placed subsidies and tax breaks
GETTING REDUCED TARIFFS	G1. Reducing foreign tariffs G2. Conservative perception A. Threaten retaliatory tariff increase	G1. Reducing foreign tariffs G2. Liberal perception A. Negotiating mutual tariff reduction	A. Some of both	G1. Subsidy to bypass foreign tariffs G2. Positive incentives
NEGOTIATING FOOD SALES OUTLETS	G. Aid U.S. producers (raise profits) A. Retaliatory tariff increases (-20%)	G. Aid US consumers (lower prices) A. Lower US tariffs without return (-20%)	A. Keep tariffs as they are	G. Reciprocal tariff reduction
NAFTA	G. Noncompetitive US firms and workers A1. Opponents A2. Labor unions and weak business firms	G1. US exporters and investors G2. US consumers A1. Advocates A2. Intellectual liberals A3. Business interests	A. Middling	G1. Free trade G2. Retraining G3. Side agreements G4. Expanding economy

G = goal, A = alternative.

The conservative position to improving international competitiveness has been to emphasize that government regulation increases business expenses, as indicated by the Bush Administration. Therefore conservatives recommend reducing government business regulations to increase international competitiveness.

The liberal position has been to emphasize the need to lower tariffs, break up monopolies, and encourage more labor management teamwork, as indicated by the Carter Administration.

The neutral position has been to avoid substantial changes in regulation, tariffs, and other such controversies.

The SOS alternative is to emphasize government investment in technological diffusion and the upgrading of skills in the American economy, as indicated by the Clinton Administration. Doing so is capable of increasing the profits of business and the wages of labor. It can also result in better products at lower prices for both domestic and international markets.

On the issue of tariffs, conservatives who believe in free competitive markets both internationally and domestically tend to favor low tariffs. Likewise, so do liberals who have an internationalistic orientation and who recognize the mutual benefits from buying overseas goods that have low prices, high quality, and the ability to stimulate competitive activity on the part of American firms.

On the other hand, conservatives who support monopolistic American businesses with their unreasonable profits are in favor of high tariffs. Likewise, pro union liberals who do not want foreign competition are also in favor of high tariffs.

Traditionally American conservatives have supported high tariffs, and American liberals have supported low tariffs. The new SOS position is to support low or no tariffs, especially to stimulate worldwide competition to the long run benefit of more efficient production and more prosperous consumption.

The object is to develop plans for well placed subsidies and tax breaks that will enable the United States to compete effectively for world market shares without the interference and mutual downgrading of high tariffs. That especially means encouraging the adoption and diffusion of new technologies, and the upgrading of worker skills to be able to put the new technologies to good use. The result, at least in the long run, is likely to be high business profits, high workers' wages, low consumer prices, high consumer quality, and lower tax rates in view of the increase GNP as a tax base.

On this policy problem, conservatives and liberals have the same general goal of reducing foreign tariffs. In order to be a controversy, there must be a difference of opinion as to the best alternative to use in achieving that goal.

The conservative position tends to emphasize retaliatory raising of tariffs as the most effective way of reducing foreign tariffs. The liberal position tends to emphasize negotiation and bargaining without explicit threats, but with promises of mutual tariff reduction. The neutral position is some of both.

There is a controversy here because conservatives and liberals perceive differently the relations between the alternatives and their shared goal. The conservative perception is that threats will do well, but conciliatory negotiation will not do so well. The liberal perceive that negotiating is more likely to do well, and that threats will not do so well.

In calculating the total scores, conservatives give more weight to their perceptions than to the perceptions of liberals. Likewise, liberals give more weight to their perceptions. On a 1-3 scale, each group gives a weight or multiplier of about 3 to its own perceptions, and a weight of about I to the other group's perceptions.

The super optimum solution should be perceived as doing better than the neutral alternative by both conservatives and liberals. That enables the SOS to score higher on the conservative totals than the conservative alternative, and higher on the liberal totals than the liberal alternative.

The SOS might include a subsidy to enable efficient domestic producers to bypass the foreign tariff. For example, if US rice producers are unable to sell to Japanese consumers because there is a $1 tariff on each bushel of rice, then it might be worthwhile for the US government to subsidize the rice farmers to the extent of $.90 per bushel. This may be enough to enable them to make a profit in spite of the Japanese tariff. It would be worth it to the US government if the subsidy keeps a lot of people employed and brings in a large amount of income to add to the GNP. Otherwise, the subsidy may not be cost effective. Such a subsidy is more likely to make sense where the Japanese government is under intense pressure from a politically powerful Japanese industry to retain the tariff.

The SOS can also include positive incentives. An example might be that the US will agree to share in developing or marketing a new technology with Japan in return for a lowering of the tariff on rice. That positive incentive may be enough to stimulate the Japanese government to find a different way to subsidize Japanese rice farmers, rather than providing them with a tariff which hurts Japanese food consumption.

This table is based on a September, 1993 news report that the US is seeking to have France reduce its subsidies to French soybean farmers. A $1 subsidy can have the same effect as a $1 tariff. In the case of the $1 tariff, a $2 quantity of US soybeans costs the French consumer $3, which is higher than the $2.50 that the French farmer charges. In the case of the $1 subsidy, the French farmer can make a profit by charging $1.50, which undercuts the $2 charged by the American farmer.

The conservative US negotiator threatens a big tariff increase on French wines to force the soybean subsidy down. That may help American wine producers, but it hurts American wine consumers.

The liberal US negotiator may lower US wine tariffs without receiving much in return. That hurts US wine producers, but it helps American wine consumers.

The SOS may be to agree to lower the US tariff on French wines if France will lower the subsidy on French soybeans. The result is that US soybean producers, US wine consumers, and French soybean consumers are all helped.

The reciprocal arrangement is a net plus to the US if we have more soybean producers than wine producers, and if the US wine producers can be diverted into something more profitable. The arrangement is also a net plus to France if they have more wine producers than soybean producers, and the French soybean producers can be diverted into something more profitable.

This kind of mutually beneficial reciprocal tariff reduction is a good example of an SOS solution where all sides come out ahead. This can be contrasted to a neutral compromise between a retaliatory increase and a unilateral decrease. Such a compromise of retaining the tariffs may hurt US soybean producers, US wine consumers, French wine producers, and French soybean consumers. The harm is greater than a reciprocal reduction, although not so bad as a retaliatory tariff increase on French wines, which may even increase French farm subsidies, rather than reduce them.

US exporters and investors are helped by free trade with Mexico and other places because (1) Mexicans can buy more US products if there are no Mexican tariffs artificially raising the price of American products, (2) Mexicans can buy more US products if they have more income as a result of working in factories that have expanded as a result of American capital, and (3) US investors can make money and add to the US GNP by investing in Mexican factories which are now able to export better to the US because US tariffs have been dropped.

US consumers are helped by free trade with Mexico and other places because (1) they can buy products made in Mexico at lower prices because they no longer have a US tariff artificially raising the prices, (2) they can benefit from low prices that should result from decreased labor expenses associated with some products made in Mexico, possibly stimulated with American capital, and (3) US consumers include business firms that buy producer goods less expensively from Mexico and thereby make American firms more internationally competitive.

US firms and workers who are not sufficiently competitive would be hurt by the NAFTA agreement, but this can be minimized by (1) retraining workers and firms so they can be more competitive in their old products or new products, (2) side agreements with Mexico that require upgrading of labor standards in Mexico, and (3) disrupted workers and firms may benefit from the increased prosperity of the US as a result of more exporting, better overseas investing, and better buys for US consumers.

Mexicans can benefit in the same ways as Americans by just substituting for the three goal columns (1) Mexican exporters and investors, (2) non competitive Mexican firms and workers, and (3) Mexican consumers.

The opponents of NAFTA are referred to in this table as conservatives, and the advocates are referred to as liberals. That is done partly to simplify the calculation of the tools. It is also in accordance with the fact that conservatives have traditionally been in favor of high tariffs, although in recent years that is less true than from about 1800 through the 1930's.

ISSUES	CONSERVATIVE	LIBERAL	NEUTRAL	SUPER-OPTIMUM
IMMIGRATION	G. Avoid unemployment A. Greatly restrict immigration	G. Welcome ambitious people A. Mildly restrict immigration	A. In-between	G. Jobs for displaced workers and ambition criteria
REFUGEES	G. Protect national purity A. Refugees out	G. Promote quality of life of refugees and society A. Refugees in	A. In-between	G. Upgrade skills
VOLUNTEERISM	G. Cost-saving and efficiency A. Buy technical assistance	G. Effectiveness A. Rely on do-gooders	A. Volunteerism agencies, e.g., Peace Corps	G. Work through professional associations

Saying that conservatives favor more restrictions on immigration than liberals do is not quite true. Those who favor restrictions do tend to be people who emphasize racial purity, but also working people who resist immigrant competition. Likewise, those who favor relaxing restrictions may be liberals who want to provide opportunities to minority people from developing nations, but also conservative business people who welcome cheap labor.

Greatly restricting immigration could refer to having very low quotas for different parts of the world. It could refer to requiring jobs in advance or having relatives in the US Mildly restricting immigration means allowing much higher immigration figures and not requiring jobs in advance. Greatly restricting immigration does tend to avoid unemployment of American workers at least in the short run. In the long run, ambitious immigrants may enhance the economy so as to provide more employment opportunities. Mildly restricting immigration does welcome ambitious people, although it may also welcome people who could be a drain on the economy.

An SOS solution that enables all sides to come out ahead might emphasize jobs for displaced workers. That would mean special programs to upgrade the skills or workers in areas where there is high immigration. An SOS solution might also emphasize ambition criteria in determining who is eligible to come to the US Such criteria might favor those who are themselves seeking higher education or educational opportunities for their children. Such criteria might exclude people who have a high probability of being on public aid, as indicated by various predictive characteristics, including responses to interviews. If an immigrant does commit a crime or wrongly applies for public aid, he can be sent back with both a free ticket and a suspended sentence to be reinstituted if he breaks the terms of the sentence.

International refugees are people who have been forced out of their nations by war or natural disasters, and they are at least temporarily waiting to return, or to go on elsewhere. Emigrants are people who are voluntarily leaving their homes and going to other nations where they are considered immigrants.

The conservative position is to keep refugees out partly to protect national purity, but also to avoid competition for jobs. The liberal position is to let refugees in partly to help them, out of sympathy, but also in recognition that they may provide useful labor and innovative ideas through themselves or their children. The compromise is to let some refugees in, but on a selective basis with restrictions.

The SOS solution might be to upgrade the skills of international refugees through organized international efforts, possibly under the direction of the United Nations. With greater skills, the refugees might be more acceptable to both conservatives and liberals, given their increased productivity and ability to enhance the economies of the countries to which they go.

Hiring expensive, experienced technicians for technical assistance programs may be highly effective in producing results desired by liberals, but it is contrary to cost saving desired by conservatives. Relying on the initiative of idealistic volunteers like missionaries may not be so effective, but it is cost saving. The neutral compromise is to have volunteers in the field, but salaried professionals in Washington government agencies like the Peace Corps.

Each major alternative can be referred to as Position I and Position 2, rather than as conservative or liberal. Position I (relying on volunteers) is conservative in having low cost, but not conservative in producing pro business results. Position 2 (relying on paid professionals) is liberal or generous in spending, but not liberal in results in being pro labor or pro consumer.

The SOS alternative might be to work through professional associations. For example, engineering associations would actively recruit engineering volunteers. Lawyer associations would recruit lawyer volunteers, and so on. One would thereby get high experts for the price of idealistic volunteers.

ISSUES	CONSERVATIVE	LIBERAL	NEUTRAL	SUPER-OPTIMUM
FOREIGN FACTORIES IN US	G. US profits A. No encouragement for foreign factories in US	G. US jobs A. Substantial encouragement	A. In-between	G. Improve competitiveness of US firms
US FACTORIES ABROAD	G. Business profits A. No constraints	G. Good working conditions A. Prohibits US, firms abroad from violating fair labor standards	A. No free trade agreements without fair labor guarantees	G1. Free trade agreements with guarantees G2. Import tax on goods made with unfair labor standards

The basic issue here is whether encouraging foreign factories to locate in the United States provides more benefits than costs in terms of the national employment and income.

The benefits mainly consist of providing jobs for Americans who work in the factories. The costs mainly consist of increasing the competitiveness of foreign firms to take away American customers from American firms and thereby decrease employment in those American firms.

Encouragement of foreign factories could consist of tax benefits and subsidies or simply being allowed in on an equal basis with American factories.

The issue is similar to the issue of allowing foreign products into the United States on an equal basis with American products, meaning no tariffs or other restrictions. Doing so is good for the American consumer. It also stimulates American business to operate more efficiently. It also facilitates American firms being able to sell overseas.

In addition to the same consumer benefits of now having tariffs on foreign products, encouraging foreign factories provides American job opportunities. It does, however, increase foreign competitiveness by reducing transportation costs. It may also make American consumers more willing to buy knowing that the products have been made in the United States, even though the firm is headquartered elsewhere.

There is currently division within the Clinton Administration on this issue, but those in favor of encouraging foreign factories are winning on the grounds that there is a net increase in jobs and other benefits.

The Clinton compromise may result in a net increase in jobs, but (at least in the short run) it also results in a decrease in the profits of competing American business firms. The net increase in jobs though may result in an overall increase in the GNP, more than offsetting the decrease in profits.

An SOS solution would seek to increase both US jobs and US profits if possible. Providing encouragement or at least equal access scores reasonably well on jobs. To have a policy that also scores reasonably well on profits, it would be helpful to have an organized program to aid American business firms that are being subjected to increased competition by the foreign factories locating in the US That does not mean aid in the form of a bailout or handout. It means seed money or investment money to improve their technologies and upgrade the skills of their workers so they can be truly more competitive with both foreign factories in the US and overseas.

An SOS solution might also provide temporary investment money to enable American firms to build factories overseas to be closer to foreign markets. That may be a separate issue, although related. Doing so provides jobs for foreign workers. There may still be a net gain to the US GNP if the foreign sales bring in US income that more than offsets the loss of jobs to foreign workers. This may be especially so if US factories overseas are supplemented by an expansion of related factories in the US in order to supply those overseas factories with parts and related products.

The problem here is whether there should be any restrictions or encouragement relating to American companies locating factories abroad.

The conservative position is no restrictions. The liberal position Is to prohibit US firms from locating abroad where doing so involves going below American fair labor standards as in the FLSA statutes. A compromise position would be to allow companies to locate factories abroad with a relaxing of the FLSA standards. but still making them at least partly applicable.

Conservatives are interested in promoting business profits. Liberals are interested in promoting employment for American labor under good wages and working conditions.

Business profits are promoted if an overseas factory has closer access to customers, raw materials, or skilled inexpensive labor. Those profits become part of an increased US national income. Locating factories overseas can also facilitate selling abroad which helps in the trade deficit whereby we would otherwise be buying substantially more than we would be selling. The US factories operating abroad may be producing products especially for the American market which can be sold at a lower price to Americans than if the products were made in factories located in the United States, where labor and resources might be more expensive.

The disruption to American employment can be reduced in various ways. One is to have free trade agreements with foreign countries whereby they agree to establish and enforce fair labor standards on American companies and other companies. Another approach is to subsidize the upgrading of relevant American labor skills to make American labor more competitive, or to enable displaced workers to go into other higher paying jobs. A third approach might be to place an import tax on goods made with unfair labor standards by US owned companies or others. The companies could avoid the tax by upgrading their foreign labor standards.

That three part package could be considered as moving in a superoptimum direction where both business and labor come out ahead. In the long run, the free movement of goods and factories across international boundaries would have the effect of raising the national income of all the countries involved, thereby producing a more general super optimum solution.

The problem of US factories going abroad especially relates to factories moving to developing nations like Mexico or Southeast Asia. A partial justification is that doing so helps those developing nations to build their economies so they can become better customers for American products, better suppliers to American producers and consumers, and better outlets for American investment. For example, wages earned by Mexican workers in US factories located in Mexico can be an important part of the ability of Mexico to buy American goods.

ISSUES	CONSERVATIVE	LIBERAL	NEUTRAL	SUPER-OPTIMUM
TRADE AND HUMAN RIGHTS	G. Business profits A. Trade without human rights conditions	G. Spread democracy A. Trade with human rights conditions	A. Trade with slight conditions	G. Promoting trade and rights partly through education and communications
COPYRIGHT PIRACY	G. Profits for copyright holders A. Tariffs and sanctions for copyright piracy	G. Circulate literature A. No raising of tariffs for copyright piracy	A. Moderate raising	G1. Government as an insurer G2. Mutual access to courts G3. Payment of royalties

This analysis stems largely from the controversy over how far to go in withholding trade from China until human rights are given more recognition. The problem, however, applies to many countries that would like increased trade with the US, but lack a minimum level of domestic institutions.

The conservative position is to have trade without human rights conditions or prerequisites. The liberal position is to use trade to secure better human rights conditions, including the possibility of a pluralistic political system which allows two or more political parties that meaningfully compete for votes. A neutral position would think in terms of less substantial human rights such as visits by Red Cross workers to political prisoners, but not ending political prisoners.

The conservative position is oriented toward American business profits. The liberal position is oriented toward spreading democracy. Both sides endorse each other's goals, but not with equal weight.

The object of an SOS alternative would be to promote both trade and human rights, partly through education and communication. That means encouraging students from China and other such countries to come to the US Doing so means they are more likely to return with American values like democracy. That also means increasing the communication of democracy related ideas by way of radio, TV, newspapers, books, and other forms of communication to China and other such countries.

The SOS alternative also recognizes that trade, even without human rights conditions, can promote human rights by promoting prosperity and internal education. Democratic institutions can also promote prosperity and trade. There is thus reciprocal causation, even without explicitly linking the two.

Trade when used to encourage human rights needs to be presented more as a reward or bribe, rather than as a threat or punishment. Trade has worked well to encourage democratic institutions in places like South Africa. It can backfire if trade is withdrawn to the point where extremists come to power (as in Russia), or to the point where the economy suffers long term destruction (as could happen in Haiti).

Trade can also be used as a bargaining chip for other purposes besides human rights conditions, such as tariff reduction and the opening of in vestment opportunities, which conservatives would endorse, too.

The issue here is whether US tariffs should be raised in retaliation against copyright piracy by other countries. Such piracy means reprinting books and other materials contrary to the monopoly rights and possible the royalty rights of the US copyright holders.

The issue is not the use of trade sanctions to promote peace, tariff reductions, or democracy on the part of other countries. Those uses of trade sanctions seem more acceptable to liberals and conservatives, as contrasted to the use of trade sanctions to stop the free circulation of literature.

The issue is also not the use of trade sanctions to retaliate against patent piracy such as making clones of IBM computers without permission or royalties. That may be less of a problem because IBM and other manufacturers should be able to compete well by having efficiently low prices and high quality products without needing a legal monopoly. They can also more easily sue large manufacturers, as contrasted to basement printing or VCR operations.

Those who advocate raising tariffs are seeking higher profits for copyright holders such as book publishers and movie companies. They argue that people will not write or publish books unless they can make big profits. However, the only books that are subject to copyright piracy tend to be books on which big profits are already being made.

Those who advocate not raising tariffs are interested in seeing the circulation of American books, music, movies, and related materials to the rest of the world. They tend to believe that such circulation generally promotes the kinds of values the US endorses, including democracy, prosperity, and peace.

An SOS solution that could enable both sides to come out ahead would be for the government to act as an insurer to copyright holders. The government would pay for part of their losses to copyright piracy in terms of the difference between the profits they are making and some reasonably high profit level, which may be lower or higher than the profits they are currently making. Such a level might be expressed as a 100% return on one's investment although possibly a different level for different types of copyrights in terms of books, movies, music, or software.

The SOS solution might also include mutual access to the courts of all countries to be able to bring lawsuits against pirating companies in order to collect reasonable royalties. Perhaps there could be an international court dealing with copyrights, patents, and trademarks. The problems are largely between private sector business firms rather than government manufacturing, but the governments could assume a responsibility for providing appropriate dispute resolution institutions and for paying non prohibitive royalties.

ISSUES	CONSERVATIVE	LIBERAL	NEUTRAL	SUPER-OPTIMUM
DOLLAR EXCHANGE RATE	G. Buy from other countries A. High dollar value	G. Sell to other countries A. Low dollar value	A. Middle dollar value	G. Improve quality and price of US goods.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES	G1. Preserve sovereignty and national strength G2. Satisfy national identity and emotions A. Nationalism and separatism	G. Promote jobs and consumer goods A. One world	A. Regional government	G. Economic community

A high dollar value means that $1 will buy many units of the currencies of other countries. A low dollar value means that $1 will buy relatively few units of the currencies of other countries.

If the dollar has a relatively high value, then we have difficulty selling to other countries because they have to give a lot of units of their currencies in order to get a dollar. If the dollar has relatively low value, then we have difficulty buying from other countries because Americans have to give a lot of dollars in order to get the currencies of other countries.

If we concentrate on improving the quality and prices of American goods, then we can sell a lot of American goods to other countries without lowering the value of the dollar. A big effect of selling a lot more to other countries is the increase in the American national income. That enables us to have a lot more money to buy from other countries without raising the value of the dollar.

Thus improving the quality and price of American goods through upgrading technologies and skills is a good SOS solution because it can achieve both goals of increased buying and increased selling simultaneously. This is in contrast to manipulating the dollar which increases one goal but decreases the other goal in a typical tradeoff pattern.

The international economic community scores well on the conservative goal of national identity and stature. No sovereignty is given up. Each member of the community gains some stature by being associated with a larger, more powerful body than itself.

An IEC also promotes the liberal goal of quality of life in terms of jobs and consumer goods by (1) allowing for the free flow of job applicants across international boundaries, (2) removing tariff barriers to higher consumer standards of living, and (3) providing for a better division of labor among the countries which facilitates more jobs and more consumer goods.

1. For further details on win win or super optimizing analysis, see S. Nagel, Policy Analysis Methods and Super Optimum Solutions (Nova Science, 1995), S. Nagel, The Policy Process and Super Optimum Solutions (Nova Science, 1994), and S. Nagel and Miriam Mills, Developing Nations and Super Optimum Policy Analysis (Nelson Hall, 1993). For further details on international prosperity, see Committee for Economic Development, The United States in the New Global Economy: A Rallier of Nations (CED, 1992), David P. Forsythe (ed.), The United Nations in the World Political Economy (St. Martin's Press, 1989), and William Brock and Robert Hormats (eds.), The Global Economy: America's Role in the Decade Ahead (W. W. Norton, 1990).[SSN1]