According to the article "New Report Links U.S. Trade Deficit To Exclusionary Practices
of Japanese", a recent report issued by the Congressional Office for Technology Assessments
states that " Japanese Multinational companies effectively control U.S.-Japan trade since as much
as 66% of such trade is among Japanese concerns and their affiliates."   It  also goes on to state
that "Japanese affiliates in the U.S. have consistently run far larger trade deficits than affiliates of
European companies.  In 1992 for instance, U.S.-based affiliates imported $37.4 billion more in
goods than they exported.   German and British  affiliates had smaller deficits of $9.6 billion and
$4.1 billion, respectively, that year."   The report also goes on to state a very controversial
recommendation called "conditional national treatment"  which, effectively means that those
multinational companies that come from nations that did not discriminate against U.S. companies,
would be treated more favorably than those that come from nations that maintain "Formal or
Informal market barriers" to U.S. exports.  
     Based on the information supplied by the report, the author has misinterpreted the
information as being proof of Japan's unfair trading policy.   While it's true that Japan does have
restrictive import laws,  the report says nothing about that issue.  Instead, it states  the high level
of  imports of purchased by U.S. resident Japanese firms in comparison to U.S. resident European
firms.  This information more illustrates the difference in European and Japanese business strategy
than a difference in trade attitudes. 
     The major ingredient of Japan's past financial success was  the  use of  developing nations
as areas where parts were manufactured by affiliated subcontractors.  While at the same time in
nations such as the U.S.,  where there is a strong market for the finished product, the majority of 
production deals with assembly and transport.  This isn't an example of unfair trade, but good
business savvy.  
     By using third world nations as a base for subcontracted low level manufacturing, Japan
gets the added perks of prices being substantially lower than what they would have been if bought
from within the nation where assembly takes place.  Plus,  in the third world subcontractors are
more likely to have contracts that are more favorable towards the buyer, often meaning that if
sales of the finished products are lower than expected,  Japanese companies aren't obligated to
buy the excess parts inventory.    Thus the subcontractor eats the loss, reducing the amount of
loss in revenue that most companies would be subject to.  Another plus of this strategy is,  usually
in the nation where the final sale takes place, there is a preexistence of the technology that is
needed to assemble.   This makes investment costs lower than  building the plant  in a third world
nation where the technology does not exist.   Plus,  there is a major reduction in shipping costs by
shipping a large number of small parts that are tightly packed to be assembled in the nation where
the final goods are to be sold.  In comparison to the additional cost of the shipment of  a bulky
finished goods across seas.
     I believe that If more U.S. companies adopted this strategy instead of crying about its
unfairness,  there would be a definite upturn in aggregate productivity.  Though luckily,  it seems
that there has been  a recent trend towards U.S. investment in low level production within the
developing world, especially in the pacific rim.  Which goes to show that some U.S. companies
have not been oblivious to the advantages of  this style of business.  I would think that even
though pacific rim stocks have had  high yield in the past and will have in the near future, they are
one of  the most vulnerable to any economic slow down due to their developing Japan style
relationships with U.S. business, where they would be the first to feel the sting of reduced sales. 
While,  I believe  that those U.S. companies who use third world nations as subcontractors will 
be the most financially stable during an economic slow down, due to the low level of probability
of an inventory glut.