Divergences on the managing of the rise of China or Europe’s need to do more for its own security are likely to remain, whoever is the next man in the White House. What would change is the tone as Biden, a convinced transatlanticist, believes the US can only play this role in dialogue with its partners.
Under Trump, Washington and Europe clashed on a number of issues, ranging from foreign policy or trade to environment, digital, and agriculture. Washington and Brussels even disagreed over how to handle the COVID-19 pandemic.
The EU is waiting for the results of the elections to impose $4 billion in compensatory tariffs on US exports, in response to Washington subsidies to Boeing. Brussels wants to try to find a negotiated solution and cancel US tariffs on $7.5 billion worth of European products, an option that could be on the cards if Biden is the winner.
Tensions, however, are expected to continue if Trump remains in the White House. The new EU Trade commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis, expressed his willingness to find a fresh start with his administration when he took over in October. But he also warned that there is no room for more piecemeal agreements like the lobster deal to facilitate the bilateral trade.
Read more at:
EU ‘troublemakers’ back Trump over Biden in US election – EURACTIV.com
Showing posts with label market economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label market economy. Show all posts
8/24/16
Brexit: The Lesson From Brexit Is That Too Much Market And Too Little State Invites A Backlash - by Kevin H O’Rourke
It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalisation can leave people behind, and that this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can’t but help feeling a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are seeing, in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time.
The main point of my 1999 book with Jeff Williamson, Globalization and History, was that globalisation produces both winners and losers, and that this can lead to an anti-globalisation backlash. We argued this based on late-19th century evidence. Then, the main losers from trade were European landowners, who found themselves competing with an elastic supply of cheap New World land. The result was that in Germany and France, Italy and Sweden, the move towards ever-freer trade that had been ongoing for several years was halted, and replaced by a shift towards protection that benefited not only agricultural interests, but industrial ones as well. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, immigration restrictions were gradually tightened, as workers found themselves competing with European migrants coming from ever-poorer source countries.
While Jeff and I were firmly focused on economic history, we were writing with half an eye on the ‘trade and wages’ debate that was raging during the 1990s. There was an obvious potential parallel between 19th-century European landowners, newly exposed to competition with elastic supplies of New World land, and late 20th-century OECD unskilled workers, newly exposed to competition with elastic supplies of Asian, and especially Chinese, labour. In our concluding chapter, we wrote that:
A focus of this book has been the political implications of globalization, and the lessons are sobering. Politicians, journalists, and market analysts have a tendency to extrapolate the immediate past into the indefinite future, and such thinking suggests that the world is irreversibly headed toward ever greater levels of economic integration. The historical record suggests the contrary… unless politicians worry about who gains and who loses, they may be forced by the electorate to stop efforts to strengthen global economy links, and perhaps even to dismantle them…The globalization experience of the Atlantic economy prior to the Great War speaks directly and eloquently to globalization debates today. Economists who base their views of globalization, convergence, inequality, and policy solely on the years since 1970 are making a great mistake. We hope that this book will help them to avoid that mistake— or remedy it.
Read more: The Lesson From Brexit Is That Too Much Market And Too Little State Invites A Backlash
The main point of my 1999 book with Jeff Williamson, Globalization and History, was that globalisation produces both winners and losers, and that this can lead to an anti-globalisation backlash. We argued this based on late-19th century evidence. Then, the main losers from trade were European landowners, who found themselves competing with an elastic supply of cheap New World land. The result was that in Germany and France, Italy and Sweden, the move towards ever-freer trade that had been ongoing for several years was halted, and replaced by a shift towards protection that benefited not only agricultural interests, but industrial ones as well. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, immigration restrictions were gradually tightened, as workers found themselves competing with European migrants coming from ever-poorer source countries.
While Jeff and I were firmly focused on economic history, we were writing with half an eye on the ‘trade and wages’ debate that was raging during the 1990s. There was an obvious potential parallel between 19th-century European landowners, newly exposed to competition with elastic supplies of New World land, and late 20th-century OECD unskilled workers, newly exposed to competition with elastic supplies of Asian, and especially Chinese, labour. In our concluding chapter, we wrote that:
A focus of this book has been the political implications of globalization, and the lessons are sobering. Politicians, journalists, and market analysts have a tendency to extrapolate the immediate past into the indefinite future, and such thinking suggests that the world is irreversibly headed toward ever greater levels of economic integration. The historical record suggests the contrary… unless politicians worry about who gains and who loses, they may be forced by the electorate to stop efforts to strengthen global economy links, and perhaps even to dismantle them…The globalization experience of the Atlantic economy prior to the Great War speaks directly and eloquently to globalization debates today. Economists who base their views of globalization, convergence, inequality, and policy solely on the years since 1970 are making a great mistake. We hope that this book will help them to avoid that mistake— or remedy it.
Read more: The Lesson From Brexit Is That Too Much Market And Too Little State Invites A Backlash
12/1/13
Germany: Merkel reaches coalition deal with Social Democrats - by Jessica SALTZ
 |
| Berlin Brandenburg Tor |
Germany’s two biggest political forces negotiated through the night and reached a breakthrough at about 5am (4am GMT).
Two months after Merkel’s election victory and a month after coalition talks began, the agreement, if ratified, would enable her to form a government by Christmas – if the SPD gets approval from its 474,000 party members.
The outcome of the rank-and-file postal ballot remains far from certain because many SPD members reject the notion of their traditionally blue-collar party again governing in the shadow of Merkel, as it last did 2005-09.
After that uneasy political marriage, the SPD scored two humiliating electoral defeats in a row and won less than 26% against the conservatives' nearly 42% in the September 22 ballot.
In the protracted talks, the SPD scored a major victory on its core demand, a minimum wage of 8.50 euros ($11.50) per hour from early 2015.
The move aims to narrow a wealth gap brought about by decade-old labour reforms but should also cheer critics in the US, the IMF and Europe who want the export-power to stimulate domestic demand and correct its lopsided trade balance.
The SPD also pushed through a demand for a 30% women's quota on the boards of listed companies from 2016, and an easing of a ban on dual nationality, a key demand of Germany's large Turkish immigrant community, sources said.
Both sides also agreed on pension increases to protect retirees in rapidly ageing Germany, where many elderly are growing scared of suffering poverty in old age.
Read more: Merkel reaches coalition deal with Social Democrats - GERMANY - FRANCE 24
10/28/11
New Social Justice Index Places U.S. Near Bottom - by Dan Froomkin
A central concern for those in the Occupy movement -- that the economic system in the U.S. is rigged in favor of the well-off -- has been corroborated by a major new survey of developed nations.
When it comes to social justice -- defined here as the ability each individual has to participate in the market society, regardless of their social status -- the United States ranks near the bottom of 31 developed countries, the Thursday report from Bertelsmann Foundation found.
It's one thing if you live in a market economy where everyone has the same shot at success. It's quite another if fortune favors the fortunate. And the new survey found that when it comes to "equal opportunities for self-realization," the U.S. ranks 27 out of 31 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states, well behind not just Northern European countries like Norway and Denmark, but even countries like Hungary, Poland, Italy and France. The only countries whose citizens fare even worse are Greece, Chile, Mexico and Turkey.
For more: New Social Justice Index Places U.S. Near Bottom
When it comes to social justice -- defined here as the ability each individual has to participate in the market society, regardless of their social status -- the United States ranks near the bottom of 31 developed countries, the Thursday report from Bertelsmann Foundation found.
It's one thing if you live in a market economy where everyone has the same shot at success. It's quite another if fortune favors the fortunate. And the new survey found that when it comes to "equal opportunities for self-realization," the U.S. ranks 27 out of 31 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states, well behind not just Northern European countries like Norway and Denmark, but even countries like Hungary, Poland, Italy and France. The only countries whose citizens fare even worse are Greece, Chile, Mexico and Turkey.
For more: New Social Justice Index Places U.S. Near Bottom
3/21/11
Corporate Greed Out Of Control: Why AT&T’s takeover deal of T-Mobile is bad for customers and free market capitalism
..move to take over T-Mobile USA is disastrous news for customers. It will let AT&T shut down a competitor, jack up prices, and save on customer service. The whole essence of the free market system lies in consumer choice and competition. That’s why companies can charge what they like, and offer the products and services they like. But ultimately, if the consumer is unhappy, they can take their business elsewhere. That at least is how old fashioned capitalism used to work. Today, specially in the utilities, energy, medical and transportation sectors the choices for the consumer are continuously being reduced as a result of mergers.
What’s going to happen to some of these great T-Mobile features after AT&T takes it over? If one listens to what AT&T chairman Randall Stephenson said this weekend "that AT&T “will look hard at whether to continue some of T-Mobile's services one can only wonder what that means?
History has proven now without doubt that these merger deals are always bad for the consumer. If you happen to think wireless and telephone companies are arrogant today, just wait till they’ve cut their cozy wireless communication club down to just three with the possibility of even more “merger misery” in that industry.
Remember the Sprint and Nextel or the FedEx and Kinko’s merger? Or look what happens if you want to book a flight on an airline these days, following the mergers in that industry. Sky high costs, little or no service, additional charges for food, baggage, seating, fuel, taxes, and just about everything else. Also, to make matters worse, one will find that in today's corporate worlds we find that most CEO's don't care. Why should they? They just have their mind on just three things: Stock options, stock options, and stock options.
You as a consumer in the US and the EU can take action if you care about freedom of choice and competition. Write to your local parliamentarian, or US congressman. Write to your representative in the European parliament or US Senator. Write to the European Ombudsman, US Federal Communications Commission or the U.S. Department of Justice. They are ones which must approve deals like the one between T-Mobile and AT&T or others.
EU-Digest
7/25/09
NewScvientists: Falling out of love with market myths - by Terrence Kealey
For the complete report from the New Scientist click on this link
Falling out of love with market myths - by Terrence Kealey
"My story starts with a theory that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher sold us. It is called "supply-side economics", and it claims that economic growth depends, first, on the rich (not the poor) being rewarded with tax cuts; and second, on markets being freed from regulation. Clearly the theory is flawed. The rush by bankers to pay themselves large bonuses, even as their failing banks were being nationalised, reveals the true function of this bloated remuneration - to benefit only its recipients - while the banks failed precisely because their regulation was too lax. Supply-side economics was buttressed by two further theories: "rational expectations" and "efficient markets". As their names imply, these assume that traders do not make systematic errors when predicting the future, and that the prices of financial products such as shares, bonds and property accurately reflect all relevant information.
Unfortunately, entrepreneurs today love the theory of market failure. Once, like Bill Gates, they rejoiced in the free market, but today, banker-like, they want to nationalize the costs of their R&D but to privatize their profits. Indeed, when I ran a biotechnology start-up in the 1990s, I too claimed every government grant going, even though I secretly knew that there is no market failure. False theories are often beguiling (markets look, at first sight, efficient; science looks, at first sight, like a public good) but while false economic theories are soon exposed by the crunches in the market, the tragedy of false economic theories in science is that they can be more easily disguised because their failings are more insidious."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)