Maybe in the wider context, not allowed by the Global Capital to be taken into account, the total cost over time of stimulating domestic technology production vs the cost of having to deal with less developed economy later is lower even with the higher initial investment.
Christ what an asshole!
USA USA USA?
Of the soul
It’s not that Japan wants to eat Japanese rice so much that Japanese rice fields are a complex system evolved over many years in which vegetables are grown on the lands between rice fields. Without the rice, growing veg is uneconomic; that would cause significant farming and food problems.
The WTO is a blunt instrument devised by lawyers ignorant of ecology, environmentalism and sustainability to meet the requirements of a particular school of free market economics. It has become an economic weapon to be deployed mainly by the US. The growth of things like the Chinese-Russian accord shows what may happen; new trading blocs will arise that ignore the WTO, and if they get attractive enough, countries will join them.
wait, why does cornholio have the stigmata?
I don’t think that the US is really the main user of WTO’s DSB, the settlements are often not in favour of US politics (see steel tariffs or the endless story Airbus/Boeing).
Alternatives are good. With enough options, there’s less chance one will be too big to become a global bully. In case of WTO, alternatives are sorely needed.
Not directly comparable to the WTO but it will be interesting to see the development of the AIIB. Even the UK became member though the US moved heaven and hell to prevent this Chinese-lead institution.
Corruption? Yes. Rampant? No? I haven’t had to pay a bribe in my life. In much of the world, that is not the case.
However, I’m slightly mystified as to the angle you’re taking here. Are you saying we should not interfere with local corruption? (Also please remember, I’m only pointing out something that feels suspicious. While ignoring smoke isn’t a good policy, not all smoke = fire.)
My point is that if you want the benefits of a trade deal (and India apparently wanted them), then you are obliged to play by the rules you signed. It’s not as if the USA (or my home province, Ontario) has been free from suits brought against them for exactly the same thing. The difference is that they didn’t tend to cancel the project but ended up being forced to actual put it out to fair tender.
I do think there’s a reasonable case for developing countries to transfer a substantial amount of tax receipts (usually from rural farmers to larger industrial concerns) in an attempt to grow a home-built industry (Dani Rodrik is a good source for this). However, you then don’t expect to get tariff-free access to large American markets.
The whole reporting of this is nonsense. The WTO didn’t say India can’t do it, they said it has to be open to a proper bidding process.
I also like that 20-year-old treaties are referred to as “archaic”.
I’m not certain that I’d count on China and Russia to lead the way to better trade rules that end up benefiting its citizenry.
On the other hand, it is being said that the presence of Soviet Union and its ideology competing with the freemarketer one was what kept the handling of the workers and peons in the West somewhat less cutthroat. So they wouldn’t look across the fence and want what the other side got.
There’s always a little chance that having a choice will improve the situation.
True enough. Choice, even of a bad alternative, can have quite a salutary effect on the competitors.
What I worry about is that such pacts’ attractiveness to governments revolves around not having to worry about consumer welfare at all, only the approval of the other governments. That’s a pretty powerful proposition to a lot of governments.
(And say what you like about the American government, I think most of its ills come from having to worry too much about what the population will vote in the next election cycle (and thus requiring an enormous campaign chest to buy advertising) than from assuming that the citizenry is irrelevant to their political future.)
The US system is a one-party system.
The one party, the Business Interests Party, has two bitterly competing factions, the right-wing one and the righter-wing one, locked in bitter rivalry.
Western bullying is shorthand for the aggressive use of US-UK military, intelligence, and diplomacy to affect political change and control in less powerful countries ultimately fo the benefit of globalized capital and production. I have to go wash my mouth out now.
without american permission !!
I’d argue it’s even worse than that. Corporations are now using the TPP, a trade deal they bought undemocratically through lobbying, to force governmental policy. Those corporations have no national allegiance. They’ll turn on US interests and soon as Indian interests if it suits their investors. The TPP literally put maximizing short-term profits above the sovereignty of governments. It’s another step in corporations, specifically the largest conglomerates with the most cash to spend in court, becoming more powerful legally than governments, enabling them to lock out competition whether it’s local or somewhere else on Earth. Competition is the last check on their power. Without it, they can loot the economy, screw over their customers and the so-called free market, and pay the highest possible dividends to investors in the shortest possible time, thus increasing their stock values and their boards’ personal wealth.
However, I’m not so certain that the parties don’t reflect the somewhat basic sentiments of the American voter.
Perhaps, being somewhat left, I’m used to the idea that I’m out of step with the sentiments of my countrymen (and I’m Canadian). (And yes, I’m still smarting from the realization that Rob Ford (or as I think of him, Trump writ small) was indeed a true representation of the overall sentiment of my fellow Torontonians, even though not a single person I knew personally voted for him.)
You know what’s not archaic? The Trans Pacific Partnership. Out with the less than young. In with the New!.
The answer is obvious, but also deeply disturbing to theologians.