Semi-Daily Journal

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/opinion/04THU3.html

Betraying the Sick in Africa

There is an old joke about a man who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he is an orphan. For such chutzpah on a global scale, consider President Bush's overseas AIDS initiative. In his last State of the Union address, the president announced a new program to fight AIDS in Africa and pledged $15 billion over the next five years. But instead of using existing channels, Mr. Bush created a new bureaucracy. Now the White House and Congressional Republicans argue that since the bureaucracy is not ready, dying patients must wait....

So it emerges that the American-E.U. meeting held recently was indeed a stitch-up, as widely suspected at the time. Utterly shameless.

Dean Baker claims that, at least according to the World Bank's models, an upper bound for the impact of first world agricultural protectionism on third world economies is about 0.6% GDP (for a 3rd world economy).

He also points out that (a) this isn't much, (b) the negative impact on the 3rd world of extending patent and copyright protections from the 1st to 3rd worlds is much higher.

Dean Baker claims that, at least according to the World Bank's models, an upper bound for the impact of first world agricultural protectionism on third world economies is about 0.6% GDP (for a 3rd world economy).

He also points out that (a) this isn't much, (b) the negative impact on the 3rd world of extending patent and copyright protections from the 1st to 3rd worlds is much higher.

I am also very angry about this late-inning subterfuge. However, I think EU member states are (marginally) even worse than the U.S., since the CAP is worse than even Bush's woeful ag subsidy.

I think it's rather unfair to say that Zoellick is "overwhelmingly a lobbyist" for industries wanting protection, though it was certainly painful to watch his tortured rationalizations during the steel tarriff decision.

I think the truth is that he is a believer in lowering ag subsidies but is running into the political imperative to give lip service or protectionist cave-ins to sensitive groups and regions (i.e. steelworkers in PA). Bush, I think, vaugely believes in free trade but is ready to throw it over if the politics dictate doing so to be an advantage. In this particular case, I do think that the Karl Rove conspiracy theories actually make sense.

The Democrats are hardly better and perhaps worse on this issue. Lowering or eliminating agricultural subsidies are actually one of the few areas in which both liberals and conservatives could make common cause against the special interests that continue to derail this economically sound and just idea.

I am also very angry about this late-inning subterfuge. However, I think EU member states are (marginally) even worse than the U.S., since the CAP is worse than even Bush's woeful ag subsidy.

I think it's rather unfair to say that Zoellick is "overwhelmingly a lobbyist" for industries wanting protection, though it was certainly painful to watch his tortured rationalizations during the steel tarriff decision.

I think the truth is that he is a believer in lowering ag subsidies but is running into the political imperative to give lip service or protectionist cave-ins to sensitive groups and regions (i.e. steelworkers in PA). Bush, I think, vaugely believes in free trade but is ready to throw it over if the politics dictate doing so to be an advantage. In this particular case, I do think that the Karl Rove conspiracy theories actually make sense.

The Democrats are hardly better and perhaps worse on this issue. Lowering or eliminating agricultural subsidies are actually one of the few areas in which both liberals and conservatives could make common cause against the special interests that continue to derail this economically sound and just idea.

I am also very angry about this late-inning subterfuge. However, I think EU member states are (marginally) even worse than the U.S., since the CAP is worse than even Bush's woeful ag subsidy.

I think it's rather unfair to say that Zoellick is "overwhelmingly a lobbyist" for industries wanting protection, though it was certainly painful to watch his tortured rationalizations during the steel tarriff decision.

I think the truth is that he is a believer in lowering ag subsidies but is running into the political imperative to give lip service or protectionist cave-ins to sensitive groups and regions (i.e. steelworkers in PA). Bush, I think, vaugely believes in free trade but is ready to throw it over if the politics dictate doing so to be an advantage. In this particular case, I do think that the Karl Rove conspiracy theories actually make sense.

The Democrats are hardly better and perhaps worse on this issue. Lowering or eliminating agricultural subsidies are actually one of the few areas in which both liberals and conservatives could make common cause against the special interests that continue to derail this economically sound and just idea.

Where's the Baker piece? I'm sorry, but 0.6% of GDP is not a small thing.

With regards to the USTR under Clinton - I'm not sure I agree. Having had to study the machinations of Charlene Barshefsky fairly closely, with regard to New Zealand anyway, it seems very much a case of the USTR trying to warp free trade lingo to cover breaches by the US that were clearly lobbyist-motivated, much like Zoellick and the Steel Tariffs (the Kiwifruit dumping case and the Lamb Tariff case, both of which went to WTO arbitration, spring to mind).

i'm genuinely confused, and as i have the upmost respect for brad i assume that there is a lack of clarity in my understanding. in doha european ag protectionism is hating the poor, but when subsidy corn is sold in mexico city under nafta terms it's america bringing cheap corn to the urban mexican. there must be something i don't understand about this process.

anne points to a NYT article saying: "There is an old joke about a man who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he is an orphan." This is spot on. EU trade barriers and farm subsidies is known to cause economic disaster just outside the EU barrier. Hence crimes like drugs and trafficking. And then EU politicians like our Swedish FM Anna Lindh (Soc. Dem) are regretting this problem, proposing comittees to "work with" the problems. Never ever a word of the trade barriers that caused them!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/international/americas/03MEXI.html

As China Gallops, Mexico Sees Factory Jobs Slip Away
By JUAN FORERO

TEZIUTLÁN, Mexico — At the Gicsa Corporation, workers hunched over bulky sewing machines, busily producing stacks of blue jeans for stores like Target and American Eagle Outfitters in the United States.

But while the company still owns 10 factories filling orders for American clients in this lush swath southeast of Mexico City, all is not right in this and the 180 or so other low-wage textile plants packed into this region.

Mexico, long the king of the low-cost plants and exporter to the United States of products from Ford trucks to Tommy Hilfiger shirts to I.B.M. computers, is fast being supplanted by China and its hundreds of millions of low-wage workers.

The competition from China is no doubt hitting American manufacturers as well, particularly in textiles. But perhaps nowhere are the effects being felt more keenly than here in Mexico, where the toll in jobs is mounting at a staggering pace.

More and more plants like Gicsa — so-called maquiladoras that are allowed to import components duty free so long as they are assembled for export only — are scaling back operations or closing altogether. In all, 500 of Mexico's 3,700 maquiladoras have shut down since 2001, at a cost of 218,000 jobs, the Mexican government says....