Archive for the ‘globalization’ Category

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Renegotiating NAFTA by the Back Door

September 23, 2015 Leave a comment

For years, trade and justice activists from across North America have proposed renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement to address some of the deal’s most damaging features. Top priorities would include removing the anti-democratic investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions of Chapter 11, linking trade benefits to genuine protections for human and labour rights (crucial given the deteriorating democratic situation in Mexico, with mass disappearances and regular suppression of journalists and organizers), and establishing a continent-wide strategy to fairly allocate investment and production in key industries like auto manufacturing (thus curtailing the race-to-the-bottom the that currently shapes those patterns).

We were always told that renegotiating NAFTA was a pipe dream: it would not be possible to open the text and get all three countries on board with reforms, no matter how legitimate the concerns. So imagine our collective surprise to see that the entire NAFTA is suddenly now being renegotiated on a wholesale basis – but through a back-door method. The Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, as usual behind closed doors, have jumped right into the deep end, opening up the entire text of NAFTA to wholesale reform and renegotiation. Read more…

Canada’s Experience Warns of Dangers of Investor-State Dispute Settlement Systems

July 30, 2014 3 comments

The more troubled the global economy becomes, the more insistent do neoclassical economists get with their arguments for still more free trade and globalization — and the more rose-coloured are the gains they predict from the next free trade deal.  Never mind that existing trade liberalization (under neoliberal terms) has produced imbalance, a tendency to stagnation, and a socially destructive race to the bottom in the interests of competitiveness.  The promised gains from trade are always just around the corner, to be unlocked by new twists in trade negotiations (and proselytized with the help of new twists in neoclassical economic modeling). Read more…

What’s a U.S. corporation?

August 24, 2011 7 comments

from David Ruccio

It used to be that a U.S. corporation had its headquarters in the United States, paid U.S. taxes, and employed mostly U.S. workers.

Not anymore.

Now, while they still may have their headquarters officially located in the United States, they don’t pay much in the way of taxes, and many of the jobs they’re creating are overseas. In fact, they no longer even report the mix of U.S. and foreign jobs, even as they clamor for a tax holiday.  Read more…

New Video Deconstructs CGE Trade Models

July 24, 2011 1 comment

from Jim Stanford

Every time the globalizers come along with a new NAFTA-style free trade agreement, they invoke the findings of yet another high-falutin’ computerized general equilibrium (CGE) model of the projected (and inevitably mutually positive) impacts of the deal.

We’ve seen this time and time again: a numerical simulation model (not based on econometric analysis, but constructed purely by attaching illustrative parameters to a Walrasian general equilibrium framework of simultaneous equations describing market-clearing in all markets) is solved, before and after some sypothesized trade policy liberalization, and the change in outcome is interpreted as the “predicted” impact of freer trade.  As we know, the positive outcome depends on sustained full employment, a lack of international capital mobility (and hence no change in aggregate trade balances), the sharing of gains (or compensation) within each participating country, a lack of cumulative causation in increasing returns industries, and a whole host of other assumptions that are necessary for the model to solve — but which have nothing to do with the real-world economy in which we live. Read more…

Mercantilism Works?

January 8, 2011 2 comments

from Jim Stanford

I have gathered some interesting comparative information on the recent economic performance of the G7 economies.  My immediate goal was to try to puncture the national “triumphalism” which Canada’s ruling Conservative government has been (wrongly) wielding in an effort to deflect any criticism around Canada’s still-dismal labour market and macroeconomic circumstances.  Read more…

Kevin P. Gallagher and Ha-Joon Chang

November 12, 2009 1 comment

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,805 other followers