1) Discuss how the Mont Pèlerin Conference changed America view of manufacturing and trade.

First I will explain what in general the Mont Pèlerin Conference is, which economic view they represented. Moreover I want to deal with people who are allowed and why they are allowed to join this Conference and which goals they pursue.
In general the Mont Pèlerin Conference depended on a meeting which was formed by Friedrich von Hayek in 1947 at Mont Pèlerin in Switzerland. He invited 36 people who followed in a strict sense of liberalism, particularly the economic liberalism. Under these people were above all, economist, but, e.g., also philosophers, historians and politicians. Under it were also some Nobel Prize Laureates in economics and peace. Most of the people were Europeans, only two reluctant Americans took part on this meeting. Surprisingly this meeting was most supported from the american free market and libertarian groups. The goal of this conference was to discuss the view and the roll of the liberalism after the Second World War. The scholars gave on the meeting to level-economic and state interventionist's broads attempts a refusal and looked at a restoration of political freedom and free market economy as an inalienable condition of a lasting future protection after the Second World War. Thus the uppermost aim of the Mont Pèlerin Conference was the creation of a free market economy, above all to free trade and and the world peace originating from it. They thought that the economist were the clue to world peace. One element of their six principles was „creation of an international order conducive to the safeguarding of peace and liberty and permitting the establishment of harmonious international economic relations“ (Mont Pelerin Society, „Statement of Aims“, April 6, 1947). That means an international unity and a world governance were needed to cover world peace. In addition this will distribute health through the poorer countries all over the world. Furthermore the Society pursue the ideas of Adam Smith. So the Society was contrary to government interference and import tariffs. Moreover the Society was against trade unionism, socialism, nationalism (challenge the world peace) and communism. Some American economist realized the importantance of this meeting and the opportunity of chancing America, but most of the economist didn't believe in the concept of Mont Pèlerin. The Society looked for ways to change the social behavior through economic. Through their big influence in universities and in politics, the Society became more power and was mainstream by 1976 in America. This will introduce the era of American de-industrialization in 1976 as well.
Supplementary traditional economist supported unintended the Mont Pèlerin Society. They also wanted to find a way to prevent world wars. Their solution was also more trade. So the Western nations passed the GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) after the Second World War. However, this law was not able to regulate the trade and save the world economic, even more it introduce the Great Depression.
All in all the Mont Pèlerin Society pledge a world free from wars. The bottom of peace was (free) trade. The free trade only need a world unity. World overview organizations would have to be formed to control commercial discrepancies. Banks would have to connect internationally and offer financial means to developing countries. Nationalism and exceptionalism in countries would have to be taken below. The Mont Pèlerin society has work together between nations on a scale used which had been never seen. The west nations would have to spread out their capital to developing countries, commercial wealth and jobs for the world peace. Central banks would have to align theirs monetary policies as well. The society has held responsible economic competition as the root of world wars. But allowing the world free trade would require that the world acts as a single person to a bigger degree than foreseen.

As the next I will explain the american economic view of manufacturing and trade before the Mont Pèlerin Conference in 1947. What were the biggest reasons how the Mont Pèlerin Conference changed the american economic view?

The era of industrialization from 1776 until 1920 help to enforce America to one of the biggest player in the economic world. One reason was a clear government policy to industrialize the nation. One of the important persons in the beginning of the american industrialization was Alexander Hamilton, who pertained as the father of manufacturing. The philosophy in this period enabled through tariffs to built domestic manufacture and investments in technology to enabled low prices permanently. At this time the domestic competition was strong enough to stifle monopolies. Like the Mont Pèlerin Society Hamilton saw economic to reach economic goals. The „American System“ (Henry Clay) how it was called, used nationalism capitalism ath this time. This system stickles to protect industries by tariffs, like national innovations like roads and canals. Instead this system used government intervention to growth. To full understanding in Clay's philosophy, I have to explain Thomas Jefferson's vision of a nation. In the 1790s 90% of the Americans was related in agriculture. Through this his vision needs a free trade protect policy, which allows to sold corps in foreign countries easily. On the other side Hamilton believed that American freedom could just achieved by manufacturing and banking. Hamilton was conscious about the important of technology and manufacturing to win a war.
After the permission to produce iron, America developed fast to an iron making industry (It was forbidden by the colonial law to safe the British iron industry). Hamilton thought, financial industries are the key for industrialization. Hamilton's Federalism government was to promote industry. Later the Federalist were split on the questions on tariffs. In the 1790s non-agriculture tariffs were established. Hamilton and Jefferson political basement often disagreed with Clay, because they wanted cheap important wares, but Clay supported in manufacturing in America. In general the Federalist supported the government to control the commerce, to built the infrastructure and the extend of banking. Also the the Federalist supported tariffs which shelter the American agriculture. The War of 1812 (till 1820) demonstrated Hamilton’s view of an economic independence. After the war the British tried to destroy the US textile and pig iron industry, with success. The political pressure resulted thereby from the textiles and pig steel industry. This formed finally the "American System" from Henry Clay. The combat in the Congress in 1816 which discussed and decided about tariffs was decided by Henry Clay. The conclusion was the Tariff of 1816, Americas first tariff, which set 25 % of cotton and wool products and 30% on iron products. This was a change in Clay's mentality. He changed not at all of the vision from Jefferson but of his tendencies of free trade. At this time the Federalist were divided, because many of the Federalist were free-trader. Clay formed a Magna Charta of American economic freedom. Clay noticed that economic war was a part of the world in the 1800s. Clay supported like Eisenhower in the 1950s a national transportation system to support the national growth. This new Philosophy connects Jefferson's thinking of independence with economic manifest destiny. To defend Clay's American System the Congress pass in 1824 new tariffs. The tariff of 1824 enhanced the general level of protection to 35 % of cotton, wool, iron and hemp products.
Unconscious Clay's politics initiate the essence of the future Whig Party (Iron Whigs). Industrialization changed in this time, the most middle-state Federalism were moving from free-trade policy toward protectionism. The construction of national streets and canals promoted the development of these regions. After forming the Whig Party in 1833 the Whig Party collected old Federalists. So the Wigs forced the industrialization of America. In 1890 followed the next tariff bill by McKinley. The tariff included alterations with helps farmers and manufactures. The tariff has raised the average duty on imports to nearly fifty percent, an action has planned to protect inside industries against the foreign competition protectionism. McKinley’s tariffs concentrated on banks in America and not limit his trade. In this years America take over Britain in steel and glass production and productivity. Companies like At&T, General Electric, Ford Motor or Goodyear raised to an international player. McKinley's thinking through his tariffs connects business with working men on both sides. This was pure and simple nationalism capitalism. This period delivered a „full lunch pail“ and a period of big economic vitality. The terms of employment, as well as the working sphere could not be better. This was the complete opposite of the coming de-industrialization in America.

Now I will describe the changes of the American trade and manufacturing concerning the Mont Pèlerin Conference. It will be discussed, how the Conference changed the american view of manufacturing and trade.

The traditional view of american manufacturing and trade and the view of the Mont Pèlerin Society are the exact opposite. The Mont Pèlerin view stands for an economic view, which supported the idea of free trade, a unique of nations and the world peace originating from it. On the other hand the american view of manufacturing and trade protect their own economic from foreign countries. That means, that the trade and the manufacturing are supported from the government to force the industry in America. The focus layed in supporting american companies and not on the free trade and investment in other lands.
However, the ecomic changed after ther Second World War. America and other countries wanted to prevent and stop the development of a next world war. Through the big influence from the Mont Pèlerin Society in universities and in important facilities the Society gain more and more influence and changed the view of trade and manufacturing in America. The Mont Pèlerin Society works therefore in the background and many, thus also I, do not know these Society and don't know how big was their influence on the politics and therefore on the economy. In my opinion it's dangerous that such a dangerous Society work in the "subsoil". The problem is, that they substitue in all important facilities for example important universities. So they can unnotice influence coming generations. This has had above all in America a big influence. This led to it ,that America changed his views with regard to trade and the American economy drastically.

2) Discuss how the American's first de-industrialization is similar to today.

To explain what de-industrialization is, it must be cleared the definition of industrialization. Industralization is the whole change of the conditions appostional in a society movement from agriculture production into one based manufacturing production of goods and services. Agricuture production is the traditionally non-industrial sector about agriculture, eduction or health which become increasingly similar to the manufacturing sector of the economy. The development focus on factory production, industrial concentration and population in certain geographical areas and urbanization. It's typical that individual manual labor is replaced by mass production and craftsmen are replaced through assembly lines. Furthermore a industralization use technological innovations to increase the efficient of labor and economic growth. Industrialization is an outgrowth of capitalism and resulted in a lower birthrate and a higher average income.
Today, America has the highest depts in his entire history. The trade deficit increases steadly which means that more wealth, more jobs and more business left America. Since 2001 the United States has lost thousand of factories (32%) and millions of jobs as well. If you compare the manufacturing from 1959, which represented at this time 28 percent oft he U.S.economic output, we have 2008 just 11.5 percent. One similarity from the first de-industrialization to today is, that for example since 2009 worked less than 12 millions workes in manufacturing. That happend first 70 years ago, in the first de-industrialization. Moreover the United States have a big number of poverty all over the land through the loss of jobs and the decline of the prior big cities. It’s not similar to the first de-industrialization that the United States spent more money in export than in manufacturing and new technologys in their domestic industries. This process increas the losing of wealth. If nothing happens against this system, the Unied States suicide itself.
An example therefore are the great citie like Detroit, which was for years one oft he most powerful citie all over the world. But today this old manufacturing citie are going to become decayed. Like the first de-industrializating, the de-industrialization from today is just a nation crisis, which can solve only America.
Nevertheless, the first American de-industrialization was different from the decline today. It was more a national trend and concern only areas and industries in USA, not like today, where we have problems with the global market. The first de-industrialization started with high laber cost, cheap imports, high taxes, government regulation less modernization. High wages and good working conditions made them uncompetitive with workers in other, cheaper, locations. Another problem of this time was the rapid development of new technologies. New machines were cheaper then the tradionel man-power. The automated industrializsation eliminated weaver craft entirely. But this adaption was neccessary fort he economic of New England, which got a major cost advance and was so competitive with the new automation in other lands. The system changed to highly-automated manufacture as the companies hired skilled-craftsmen with the new technology. But also the automation broughts it’s own new problems. So the factories were dangerous, dark, noisy and so completely different to the farm work. Some people saw the factories as de-humanizing and just as a mean for the purpose to earn money. Later after the Civil War, the working and pay conditions changed and were improved through the influence of the government and unions. To move this, more regulation and taxes were added, at the cost of the manufactures. At this time the textil mills needed urgent more new technology. All this was good for the workers, but the labor cost was much higher than in foreign companies. The American technology was not able to hold the speed from chep international ouput. Mills orientate onself to the South where the government influence was less and the labor cost was lower. So New England was the first example of the first de-industrialization of America.
Another example was Trenton., which was one oft he center cities of manufacturing diversity. This de-industrialozation was similar to New England, with two other exceptions. The first was the closing of local plants as a result of corporate mergers. The second exceptions was the decrease from the economic volume of Trenton’s inner city. Later,citites like Detroit, Cleveland or Akron follwed the decrease of Trenton. Trenton was the example of the post-war globalization campaign. The result was a movement to the west and the south, were taxes were lower and cheaper. Trenton profited years from the pro-tariffs policy of the Republican of McKinley. In 1953 Trenton loss more and more population through less gain from corporate taxes. So jobs moved to the suburbs, out of the city and to the South. One reason from the success of the South was the unions, who helps the workers for better aonditions and the Taft-Harley Act from 1947, which empowered the South to pass right-to-work laws. Other reason of the de-industrialization was a spiral of less taxes, the missing of essential things like roads and the decrease of infrastructure through less modernization. Trenton was also to unpopular for new investments. Production jobs have dropped and unemployment has rose. At this time women have taken jobs in the service and in government industries to pay their bills. Services and state government increased in the 1950s and the 1960s. At 1960 in Trenton worked more people in government than in manufacturing. The problem with the government job consists to pay for more taxes by a lower tax base. The displaced workers became a lasting part of the town and even more government help

3. Compare Adam Smith and William McKinley to those of Your country

Adam Smith has become known by his treatise "economy of the nations" about the classical national economics. His treatise is valid till today as one of the most high-powered books in the economy. Adam Smith introduced at his time a revolutinonaies theory which means that the market must adjust itself and the state just give the operational framework. In Smith theory a free person should be influence the market prices. The person decides whether he shops or not, which is till this day state of kind. Moreover, Smith has described an important contribution to the division of labour which is knowingly for a state. So a craftsman did not have to produce a completely product alone. Rather the product should be split in a way which is carried out every working step by a specialist who can produce it faster, more cost-effective and more fertilely, to become more output at all.If you cover these Theory to the today's economy, it is exactly the same what all big German groups do. So, e.g., the big German cargroups (Volkswagen, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes), the electronics groups (Siemens, Bosch) or the pharmaceutical companies (Bayer). In addition, Adam Smith is also known by his theory of the invisible hand.The invisible hand says that the market tares his balance itself, that means that the prices of the market become self-determined. If the inquiry is consequently high the prices rise, is the inquiry low the prices fall. In a fair, liberal market the market finds a balance price and the prices can freely form in the market. The prices are not given by a legislator or influenced by them. Nevertheless, the state takesan important role in the market, because he creates the basic conditions for example the rules or facilities oft he market, however, he does not interfere directly with the market.The state gives only the frame for the market and the economy operated freely and liberally in this frame. This is, for example, exactly the opposite what was made during the last years in the German economy.Thus the German market was influenced, for example, by different tax rises (Added value-expensive) directly which influenced the prices of the goods accordingly.Also various new energy laws made the market adapt his prices.Thus energy-costly products, in comparison to other products became, considerably more expensive. Moreover, Smith was convinced that one key player of an enterprise (the egoist (positively) = individuum) promotes the whole enterprise.Thus Smith saw the chance in a key player that he can effects in positive way the whole enterprise. All in all, Smith’s theory is absolutely modern till this day and can be absolutely adapted with some changes in the today's conditions.
In contrast to Adam Smith who has written a whole book about economic views, McKinley represented a not so detailed, but still clear economic view. Finally, he became the 25. Presidents of America.
McKinleys domestic policy spoke for a reorganisation of the import duties. Mc Kinley wanted lower duties, however, this could not put through after his assumption of office.
McKinley new tariff included a few new innovations, which above all helps the farmers and the manufactures. Mc Kinley knew about initially high prices, however, he knew as well, that the prices would decrease in a long term if the industry invested and would develop new technology. He saw the problem not in protectice tariffs but rather in revenue tariffs. Protective tariffs had no limited exports, so Mc Kinley. His bill was focused on addressing national needs not on taxing revenue production, which was main income from the government over years. McKinley wanted to build America and was not interested in restricting the trade. McKinley was sure his tariffs was nationalistic. But through McKinley’s tariffs profited not just manufacturing. McKinley tariffs made it happen, that America take over Britain in steel/glass products and productivity. His tariffs was a type a isolationism, which brought Armerica one of the best working and paying condition over years.
These „isolationsim“ politics is today, especially in Germany, no strategy. In Germany it’s imortant to have a good trade with and relations to other countries, because we needed products and goods from other countries. So Germany prefers a global open market which is focuse of free trade with foeign companies. So Germany wants maybe the „Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership“ with the United Nations. Through this contract they can improve their trade with th USA and can sold cheaper products all over the world. But I think McKinleys tariffs was at his time one oft he best solotions for America, because through this many of cities and companies could raise to an important player in der USA and all over the world. I believe that China pursue a similar strategy. They also doesn’t want that foreign companies come in their land. They want protect their domestic industries. So China became in the last years, one oft he biggest global player all over the world. So McKinleys tariffs are good, but I think they are just good for a a few decade and hast o been adapted on the conditiones on the global market and trade.