Princeton University Global Governance Advocate Calls for New Wave of American Regulatory Socialism in the Image of European Protectionism

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html?em&ex=1213502400&en=a52b0be721dfaf26&ei=5087


Bad Cow Disease


By PAUL KRUGMAN


NEW YORK TIMES


June 13, 2008


“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

That little ditty famously summarized the message of “The Jungle,” Upton Sinclair’s 1906 exposé of conditions in America’s meat-packing industry. Sinclair’s muckraking helped Theodore Roosevelt pass the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act — and for most of the next century, Americans trusted government inspectors to keep their food safe.


[WE MIGHT SUGGEST ANOTHER MORE APPROPRIATE 'LITTLE DITTY' THAT REFLECTS THE ESSENCE OF WHAT MR. KRUGMAN IS CALLING FOR - A RETURN TO EARLY 20TH CENTURY SOCIALISM: “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Alexis de Tocqueville].

[MIGHT WE REMIND READERS THAT UPTON SINCLAIR WAS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY AND WAS INFLUENCED BY EUROPEAN MARXIST POLITICAL THINKING. "The Jungle is a classic work of socialist realism. Critic Christopher Hitchens has described it as ‘the most fully realized instance of the genre, more telling and more moving than even the works of Dickens and Zola’. Sinclair’s objective was to expose the ways in which the capitalist class, in pursuit of maximum profit, exploits and discards the working people. Jack London called the book ‘the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of wage-slavery’...The Jungle was a bestseller in the United States and Britain, and its translation into 17 languages made Sinclair an international literary figure. The Jungle inspired scores of other successful social protest writers, including Iceland’s Halldor Kiljan Laxness (1902–98)...Upton Sinclair was born in Baltimore, Maryland, United States, on 20 September 1878. His father, an alcoholic, moved the family to New York in 1888. His parents were extremely poor but his grandparents, with whom he spent extended periods, were wealthy. He claimed that experiencing these extremes pointed him in the socialist direction. His outlook was influenced by the books of English Fabian Robert Blatchford, Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin, American radicals Jack London and Frank Norris, and the investigative journalism of proud ‘muckrakers’ Ida M. Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens and Ray Stannard Baker...In 1915, Sinclair moved to California with his wife, Mary Craig, and in 1934 he won the Democratic Party’s pre-selection to contest the state’s election [FOR GOVERNOR]. For most of his life Sinclair defended communists, but his socialism was in the social-democratic mould. He parted company with Marxists in his belief that socialism could be achieved through electoral processes in America, without the need for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism." See: Aiming for the Heart - Barry York describes how Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, shocked the American public and forced changes in legislation, National Library of Australia News (Jan. 2006), at:
http://www.nla.gov.au/pub/nlanews/2006/jan06/article3.html . READERS SHOULD NOTE THAT THE EUROPEAN UNION NOW REFERS TO ITSELF AS BEING IN THE 'SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC MOULD'.]


Lately, however, there always seems to be at least one food-safety crisis in the headlines — tainted spinach, poisonous peanut butter and, currently, the attack of the killer tomatoes.


[IT IS ALWAYS HELPFUL THAT PUBLICITY-SEEKING CONSUMER & ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS PROVIDE MEDIA WITH THE SENSATIONAL HEADLINES THAT WORRY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING IN THEIR DAILY LIVES. MR. KRUGMAN, WHY NOT ADMIT THAT THIS IS WHAT OCCURS? PLEASE ALSO BE HONEST ABOUT HOW SENSATIONALIST FEAR CAMPAIGNS SERVE THE INTERESTS OF SUCH GROUPS - i.e. IT PERMITS THEM TO 'POSTURE' TO ATTRACT FUNDING. FUNDING FLOWS IF THEY ARE SEEN AS 'SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST' BY PROVIDING IT WITH INFORMATION. ALTHOUGH CONSUMERS OFTEN HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT WHERE THEIR FOOD COMES FROM & HOW ITS SAFETY IS ASSURED, HOWEVER, WE QUESTION WHETHER THESE GROUPS PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION THAN DISINFORMATION.]


The declining credibility of U.S. food regulation has even led to a foreign-policy crisis: there have been mass demonstrations in South Korea protesting the pro-American prime minister’s decision to allow imports of U.S. beef, banned after mad cow disease was detected in 2003.


[MR. KRUGMAN CONVENIENTLY LEAVES OUT SOME IMPORTANT FACTS HERE, NAMELY, THAT THE KOREAN BEEF INDUSTRY AND NGO COMMUNITY DO NOT HAVE 'CLEAN HANDS'. KOREA'S BEEF INDUSTRY WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND BY THE WTO TRIBUNALS TO VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW THROUGH IMPOSITION OF 'FOOD SAFETY' REGULATIONS DEEMED TO ACTUALLY CONSTITUTE 'DISGUISED REGULATORY TRADE BARRIERS'. IN ADDITION, KOREAN NGOs HAVE BEEN STEADILY INFLUENCED BY THE EUROPEAN SOCIALIST NGOs TO BLOCK ALL KINDS OF FOODS, EVEN WHEN SCIENTIFIC RISK ASSESSMENTS HAVE PROVEN THE FOOD is 'SAFE'. HORMONE-INJECTED BEEF, IS ONE EXAMPLE THAT TIES BACK TO THE EUROPEAN BAN ON U.S. BEEF, IN PLACE SINCE THE MID '90's, NOTWITHSTANDING THE WTO'S RULINGS AGAINST THE EU CITING THEIR BAN AS ILLEGAL 'TRADE PROTECTIONISM'. IN ADDITION, KOREAN NGOs, WITH THE HELP OF EUROPEAN SOCIALIST-GREEN GROUPS, HAVE WORKED TO BLOCK THE INTRODUCTION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, FEEDS & SEEDS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SCIENTIFIC RISK ASSESSMENTS IN BOTH THE U.S. & THE EU SHOWING THE PRODUCTS TO BE 'SAFE', AND THE WTO TRIBUNAL RULING FINDING THAT THE EU MORATORIA ON 'GMOs' WAS AN ILLEGAL DISGUISED PROTECTIONIST BARRIER TO TRADE. See: Lawrence A. Kogan, Discerning the Forest From the Trees: How Governments Use Ostensibly Private and Voluntary Standards to Avoid WTO Culpability, Global Trade and Customs Journal (Sept. 2007), at: http://www.itssd.org/GTCJ_03-offprints%20KOGAN%20-%20Discerning%20the%20Forest%20from%20the%20Trees.pdf ; Lawrence A. Kogan, World Trade Organization Biotech Decision Clarifies Central Role of Science in Evaluating Health and Environmental Risks for Regulation Purposes, Global Trade and Customs Journal (March 2007) at: http://www.itssd.org/Publications/GTCJ_04-offprints_Kogan[2].pdf .]


How did America find itself back in The Jungle? It started with ideology. Hard-core American conservatives have long idealized the Gilded Age, regarding everything that followed — not just the New Deal, but even the Progressive Era — as a great diversion from the true path of capitalism.


Thus, when Grover Norquist, the anti-tax advocate, was asked about his ultimate goal, he replied that he wanted a restoration of the way America was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.”


The late Milton Friedman agreed, calling for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. It was unnecessary, he argued: private companies would avoid taking risks with public health to safeguard their reputations and to avoid damaging class-action lawsuits. (Friedman, unlike almost every other conservative I can think of, viewed lawyers as the guardians of free-market capitalism.)


[MR. FRIEDMAN WAS CORRECT IN HIS ASSESSMENT OF THE ROLE THAT TRIAL LAWYERS CAN CONSTRUCTIVELY PLAY IN A SYSTEM SHAPED BY FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. WE DON'T AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT GOVERNMENTAL REGULATORY BODIES, SUCH AS THE FDA, SHOULD BE DISMEMBERED AND/OR ABOLISHED. BUT, REGULATORY BODIES SHOULD BE CONSTRAINED BY PRAGMATIC OBJECTIVE BENCHMARKS OF GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY & DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS OF THEIR PROPOSED PROMULGATIONS. THE 'SOCIALIST' APPROACH ADVOCATED BY MR. KRUGMAN WOULD PROVIDE GOVERNMENTAL REGULATORY AGENCIES UNFETTERED DISCRETION TO EXERCISE THEIR 'GATEKEEPER' AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF THE 'PUBLIC INTEREST' THEY ARE 'CHARGED TO PROTECT'. BUT, WHO WILL WATCH THE GATEKEEPERS & HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE??]


Such hard-core opponents of regulation were once part of the political fringe, but with the rise of modern movement conservatism they moved into the corridors of power. They never had enough votes to abolish the F.D.A. or eliminate meat inspections, but they could and did set about making the agencies charged with ensuring food safety ineffective.


[THIS DISTORTION-PRONE AD HOMINEM RHETORIC DOES NO ONE ANY GOOD. IT EXAGGERATES THINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING 'PET' POLITICAL/POLICY GOALS & PERSUADING THOSE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE MECHANISMS OF THE 'WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT' THAT THOSE GOALS AND POLICIES ARE 'GOOD'. THIS SOUNDS SO MUCH LIKE PLATO PHILOSOPHER KING-'TALK'.]


They did this in part by simply denying these agencies enough resources to do the job. For example, the work of the F.D.A. has become vastly more complex over time thanks to the combination of scientific advances and globalization. Yet the agency has a substantially smaller work force now than it did in 1994, the year Republicans took over Congress.


[MR. KRUGMAN, ONCE AGAIN, YOU DISTORT THE TRUTH. IS 'BIGGER' ALWAYS 'BETTER', CONSIDERING ALL OF THE BUREAUCRATIC WASTE, MISAPPROPRIATION, INEFFICIENCY & CORRUPTION THAT COMES ALONG WITH BIGGER GOVERNMENT??]


Perhaps even more important, however, was the systematic appointment of foxes to guard henhouses. Thus, when mad cow disease was detected in the U.S. in 2003, the Department of Agriculture was headed by Ann M. Veneman, a former food-industry lobbyist. And the department’s response to the crisis — which amounted to consistently downplaying the threat and rejecting calls for more extensive testing — seemed driven by the industry’s agenda.


[MR. KRUGMAN, ONCE AGAIN, DISTORTS THE TRUTH BY LEAVING OUT PERTINENT FACTS. CALLS FOR MORE EXTENSIVE CASE-BY-CASE TESTING & ANALYSIS WILL DETERMINE WHETHER PARTICULAR FOODS PRESENT PROBABLE HEALTH 'RISKS' TO CONSUMERS. GOVERNMENT MUST UTILIZE TOOLS THAT PROVIDE IT WITH METRICS & USEFUL INFORMATION THAT CAN THEN TRANSLATE INTO PRACTICES & PROCEDURES FOR INDUSTRY THAT WILL ENSURE GREATER FOOD SAFETY WITHOUT CAUSING COMPANIES (THE FOOD PROVIDERS) TO GO BANKRUPT, TO PASS THE HIGHER COSTS OF REGULATION TO CONSUMERS THROUGH PRICE INCREASES, OR TO OTHERWISE DEMAND HIDDEN GOVERNMENT TAXPAYER -FUNDED SUBSIDIES. MR. KRUGMAN'S PREFERRED REGULATORY 'FIX' WOULD BE TO PERMIT A CHANGE IN REGULATION THAT DISPENSES WITH THE EXTRA TESTING AND REPLACES IT WITH A A GENERAL RULE BASED ON A REGULATORY PRESUMPTION OF POSSIBLE FOOD 'HAZARDS', EVEN WHERE NONE ARE SHOWN TO EXIST. THAT FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSLATES INTO MORE UNNECESSARY COSTS, DELAYS & A MUCH BIGGER GOVERNMENT, AS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ARE CORRECT ABOUT ONE THING THAT ESCAPES MR. KRUGMAN - BIGGER GOVERNMENT IS USUALLY NOT THE ANSWER.]


One amazing decision came in 2004, when a Kansas producer asked for permission to test its own cows, so that it could resume exports to Japan. You might have expected the Bush administration to applaud this example of self-regulation. But permission was denied, because other beef producers feared consumer demands that they follow suit.


[MR. KRUGMAN, YET AGAIN, LEAVES OUT IMPORTANT FACTS. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS OPPOSED TO PERMITTING U.S. INDUSTRY TO 'SELF-REGULATE' (i.e., to BYPASS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HEALTH & SAFETY REGULATIONS BY HAVING EACH HEAD OF CATTLE INSPECTED & LABELED AS 'SAFE' & MAD COW-FREE), BECAUSE IN MANY CASES THE CATTLEMEN DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE SAFETY LABORATORIES TO UNDERTAKE THE NECESSARY SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF THEIR DESIRED MARKETING CLAIM THAT THEIR BEEF PRESENTED ZERO RISK, AND THUS WAS 'SAFE'. IN ADDITION, IT IS THE REGULATORY PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNITED STATES NOT TO ADOPT THE EUROPEAN PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT EACH HEAD OF CATTLE BE TESTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO TELLTALE SIGNS OF DISEASE. THE IMPOSITION OF THIS EXTRA COST & BURDEN UPON EUROPEAN BEEF EXPORTERS HAS MADE THEM LARGELY NONCOMPETITIVE WITH EXPORTERS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, WITHOUT MAKING THE BEEF ANY 'SAFER'. MR. KRUGMAN WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE EXPENSIVE & INEFFICIENT FOOD SAFETY SYSTEM IMPORTED INTO THE U.S.]


When push comes to shove, it seems, the imperatives of crony capitalism trump professed faith in free markets. Eventually, the department did expand its testing, and at this point most countries that initially banned U.S. beef have allowed it back into their markets.


[THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, LIKE OTHER U.S. AGENCIES, CONTINUALLY UPDATES ITS SCIENTIFIC EVALUATIONS, PROCEDURES & PRACTICES, TO REFLECT MORE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE, JUST AS THEY SHOULD. THIS RESULTED IN MORE EXTENSIVE & EFFICIENT TESTING.]


But the South Koreans still don’t trust us. And while some of that distrust may be irrational — the beef issue has become entangled with questions of Korean national pride, which has been insulted by clumsy American diplomacy — it’s hard to blame them.


[MR. KRUGMAN, THE GLOBALIST, TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF TO APOLOGIZE TO THE KOREAN GOVERNMENT AND THE KOREAN PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN OFFENSE OF TRYING TO HOLD THE KOREAN GOVERNMENT TO THE WTO RULES WHICH THEY HAVE AGREED TO FOLLOW, AND OF NOT HONORING THEIR 'CULTURAL PREFERENCE' FOR 'PURE' KOREAN BEEF & DISGUISED PROTECTIONISM . APOLOGY UNNECESSARY & INAPPROPRIATE. See: Lawrence A. Kogan, Looking Behind the Curtain: The Growth of Foreign Trade Barriers that Ignore Sound Science, National Foreign Trade Council (May 2003), at pp. 8, 12-13, at: http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/posp47_nftc_looking_behind_e.pdf .]

[MR. KRUGMAN PREVIOUSLY LAUDED THE SOCIALIST REGULATORY SYSTEM OF THE EUROPEAN UNION THAT SEEMS TO PROVIDE A MODEL FOR KOREA AND OTHER COUNTRIES FROM TIME TO TIME, IN HIS PREVIOUS NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE ENTITLED, The Comeback Continent. See: Why Has an Avowed Multilateralist Princeton Academic Been Recruited as a 'Spin-Doctor' to Improve Europe's Image Among Americans???, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom (Jan. 12, 2008) at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-has-avowed-multilateralist.html .]


The ironic thing is that the Agriculture Department’s deference to the beef industry actually ended up backfiring: because potential foreign buyers didn’t trust our safety measures, beef producers spent years excluded from their most important overseas markets.But then, the same thing can be said of other cases in which the administration stood in the way of effective regulation. Most notably, the administration’s refusal to countenance any restraints on predatory lending helped prepare the ground for the subprime crisis, which has cost the financial industry far more than it ever made on overpriced loans.


The moral of this story is that failure to regulate effectively isn’t just bad for consumers, it’s bad for business. And in the case of food, what we need to do now — for the sake of both our health and our export markets — is to go back to the way it was after Teddy Roosevelt, when the Socialists took over. It’s time to get back to the business of ensuring that American food is safe.


[MIGHT WE REMIND MR. KRUGMAN AND HIS FELLOW 'SOCIALISTS' ABOUT A FAMOUS QUOTE FROM NONE OTHER THAN SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL? “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”]

Congressman Rangel and Other House Ways & Means Committee Majority Members Provide Political Cover for Clinton & Obama to Promote Trade Protectionism

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/


U.S. Must Enforce Laws to Break Down Trade Barriers


March 28, 2008


Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives


WASHINGTON, DC – Senior House Democrats today sent a letter to President Bush, renewing their call for stricter enforcement of U.S. rights under trade agreements. The letter was sent in anticipation of the Administration’s annual "National Trade Estimate" (NTE) report listing barriers to U.S. exports.

[The 2008 National Trade Estimate (NTE) Report is accessible here:
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2008/2008_NTE_Report/asset_upload_file365_14652.pdf ].

In their letter, the Democrats expressed hope that the Administration would move past merely inventorying the systemic, recurring trade barriers that U.S. companies face, and, and to take a positive step forward and begin enforcing U.S. rights more vigorously."


In the Democrats’ view, stricter enforcement of trade laws would avoid further growth of the U.S. trade deficit and unsustainable levels of foreign-owned U.S. debt.


In 2007, the U.S. trade deficit was $711.6 billion – the third highest in history and a shocking five percent of the U.S. economy. Over the past six years alone, foreign-owned debt has more than doubled, currently standing at $2.4 trillion or 17 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). As noted in the letter, the Bush Administration has accumulated more debt to foreign governments and individuals than all previous administrations combined.


The Democrats' letter is accessible here: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/cbr%20potus.pdf .


[A REVIEW OF THE POINTS MADE IN THIS LETTER WILL REVEAL CERTAIN TRUTHS, THEY BEING: 1) THE ADMINISTRATION ARGUABLY HAS FAILED TO PROTECT U.S. PROPERTY RIGHTS BY NOT VIGOROUSLY ENFORCING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) RULES AGAINST VIOLATING WTO MEMBER NATIONS; 2) THE U.S. TRADE DEFICIT NO LONGER REFLECTS STRICTLY LOW-COST, VALUE-ADDED IMPORTS - RATHER IT NOW INCLUDES ALSO HIGH TECHNOLOGY IMPORTS DUE TO CORPORATE OUTSOURCING/ OFFSHORING; AND 3) THE RESULTING TRADE DEFICITS FROM NONENFORCEMENT OF WTO LAWS AND THE GROWING HI-TECHNOLOGY IMPORTS ARGUABLY CREATES MORE FOREIGN-OWNED U.S. DEBT AS U.S. CITIZENS BUY MORE & MORE OF PRODUCTS DESIGNED, DEVELOPED & MANUFACTURED FROM OVERSEAS SOURCES ON CREDIT. ]


[AND, ARGUABLY, THE USTR SHOULD HAVE LONG AGO BEGUN CONSULTATIONS WITH VARIOUS U.S. KEY TRADING PARTNERS, AS A PRESAGE TO COMMENCING A POSSIBLE WTO ACTION AGAINST PARTICULAR WTO MEMBER GOVERNMENTS IF U.S. CONCERNS ABOUT MARKET ACCESS TRADE BARRIERS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.


THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, IS WHICH KEY TRADING PARTNERS HAVE IMPOSED THE MOST EXTENSIVE, SYSTEMIC AND DAMAGING TRADE BARRIERS AGAINST CRITICAL U.S. PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES, OR HAVE DIMINISHED THE VALUE OF OR OTHERWISE EXPROPRIATED KEY U.S. ASSETS UNDERLYING HI-TECHNOLOGIES WHICH SERVE AS THE CORE OF AMERICA'S 21ST CENTURY ECONOMY?? HERE IS WHERE THE RANGEL REPORT GOES ASTRAY AND IS ARGUABLY DISINGENUOUS. THE RANGEL LETTER FOCUSES ON THE FOLLOWING U.S. TRADING PARTNERS: CANADA, CHINA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, KOREA, MEXICO RUSSIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM].


[IT IS INTERESTING TO SEE IN THE RANGEL LETTER THAT WHILE THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU) IS INCLUDED AS A KEY U.S. TRADING PARTNER WITH WHICH THE USTR SHOULD ENGAGE IN CONSULTATIONS TO PROTECT U.S. RIGHTS, NOT MUCH IS MENTIONED ABOUT THE MANY VERY EXPENSIVE AND COMPLEX NON-TARIFF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH (SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT)-RELATED SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY, LABELING & TRACEABILITY, PRE-MARKET REGISTRATION, CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT REGULATORY-BASED TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE WHICH THE EU HAS ADMITTEDLY ERECTED AGAINST THE U.S. SINCE AT LEAST 2002. THESE REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS WHICH DOUBLE AS DISGUISED TRADE BARRIERS, HAVE AFFECTED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS $$$$ OF U.S. EXPORTS, AS WELL AS, DIMINISHED THE EXERCISE AND VALUE OF U.S. PROPERTY RIGHTS. CONSEQUENTLY, THEY HAVE RESULTED IN A SIGNIFICANT TRADE DEFICIT WITH EUROPE, WHICH THE RANGEL REPORT FAILS TO MENTION.


APPARENTLY, THERE IS A 'GOOD' REASON FOR THIS. MR. RANGEL AND HIS COLLEAGUES ARE UNLIKELY TO ADMIT IT, BUT THEY WISH TO ADOPT THESE VERY SAME EXPENSIVE AND COMPLEX REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS HERE IN AMERICA SO THAT AMERICAN BUSINESS ARE PLACED ON THE SAME COSTLY FOOTING AS THEIR EUROPEAN COUNTERPARTS. THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS AND THE EUROPEANS REFER TO AS 'LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD' OR TRANSATLANTIC 'REGULATORY HARMONIZATION'. PERHAPS, THIS IS LARGELY WHY CONGRESSMAN RANGEL AND HIS COLLEAGUES HAVE EFFECTIVELY GIVEN EUROPE A 'PASS'.


INDEED, REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS NOW LOOK POLITICALLY PALATABLE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AS A 'QUICK FIX' FOR THE CURRENT TRADE DEFICITS, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW FULL WELL THAT EARLY 20TH CENTURY HISTORY HAS SHOWN HOW TRADE PROTECTIONISM BY ONE COUNTRY CAN DEVOLVE INTO A SERIES OF SIMILAR PRACTICES EMPLOYED BY OTHER NATIONS THAT RESULT IN MORE & MORE TRADE PROTECTIONIST DEVICES BEING ERECTED. IN FACT, THE TRADE PROTECTIONISM OF THAT ERA WAS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVENTS THAT LED TO WORLD WAR II!!! THE INTERNATIONAL TRADING SYSTEM WAS CREATED TO PREVENT THAT FROM EVER OCCURRING AGAIN.


[IN ADDITION, THE RANGEL LETTER FAILS TO MENTION EITHER BRAZIL OR THAILAND, TWO OF THE LEADING NATIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRYING TO CHANGE THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PARADIGM FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS & TRADE SECRETS, SO THAT THEY MAY ACQUIRE U.S. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL KNOW-HOW AT CONCESSION-RATE PRICES!!! DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES HOW THESE TWO NATIONS HAVE, FOR AT LEAST 8 YEARS, LED AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF WELL-FUNDED HEALTH & INFORMATION ACTIVIST GROUPS, TO CHANGE INTERNATIONAL TRADE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND HEALTH LAW. THEY HAVE UTILIZED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS TO CONVERT PRIVATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INTO THE PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL GOODS OF FREE HEALTHCARE AND FREE DIGITAL KNOWLEDGE. BRAZIL AND THAILAND HAVE WORKED TOGETHER IN THE WTO, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO), WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO), THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (UNCHR), THE UN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (UNDP) AND UN EDUCATION, SCIENCE & CULTURAL ORGANIZATION (UNESCO). IN FACT, BOTH BRAZIL AND THAILAND HAVE, WITHOUT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, ISSUED COMPULSORY LICENSES AGAINST U.S.-OWNED DRUG PATENTS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING AS A GOVERNMENT DECLARING EMINENT DOMAIN ON ONE'S PRIVATELY OWNED HOME. INTERESTINGLY, U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY AND OTHER CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS HAVE PROPOSED LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO DECLARE COMPULSORY LICENSES ON THE PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS OF U.S. TAXPAYER-OWNED HI-TECHNOLOGIES!!! PERHAPS, THIS IS LARGELY WHY CONGRESSMAN RANGEL AND HIS COLLEAGUES HAVE GIVEN BRAZIL AND THAILAND A 'PASS'.


[INSTEAD, MR. RANGEL AND HIS COLLEAGUES DEVOTE CONSIDERABLE INK TO 'BASHING CHINA' WHICH, FOR SOME UNEXPLAINABLE REASON, DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS ARE OBSSESSED WITH, AS ARE THEIR EUROPEAN COMMISSION COUNTERPARTS.]


[A CLOSE REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL TRADE ESTIMATE REPORT WILL REVEAL THAT EUROPE IS SECOND ONLY TO CHINA IN THE NUMBER OF 'TRADE BARRIERS' LISTED AND DESCRIBED. THE REPORT DEVOTES 45 PAGES TO EUROPE, AND 67 PAGES TO CHINA, BUT EUROPE IS NOT REALLY BEING FOCUSED ON BY MR. RANGEL!!].


FURTHERMORE, THE NATIONAL TRADE ESTIMATE REPORT SHOWS THAT THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES HAVE BETWEEN 10 and 20 PAGES OF DESCRIBED TRADE BARRIERS, BUT ONLY JAPAN & RUSSIA ARE MENTIONED, NOT TAIWAN, SOUTH AFRICAN CUSTOMS UNION OR INDIA. HAVE MR. RANGEL AND HIS COLLEAGUES GIVEN THESE COUNTRIES A 'PASS' AS WELL???


[THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES HAVE FEWER THAN 10 PAGES ALLOCATED TO THEM, BUT THEY ARE ALSO INCLUDED ON MR. RANGEL'S 'BAD BOY' LIST:

- KOREA – 5 PAGES;
- CANADA – 10 PAGES;
- UNITED KINGDOM – ¼ PAGE.

WHAT IS INTERESTING HERE IS HOW THE U.K. IS CITED FOR PHARMACEUTICAL MARKET ACCESS BARRIERS BASED ON OVERLY CONTROLLED PRICING SCHEMES: THIS PROVIDES ONE MAJOR EXAMPLE OF WHY U.S. DRUG PRICES ARE SO HIGH – NAMELY, B/C U.S. PHARMA COMPANIES FIRST SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF DRUG DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH DO NOT PAY HIGH ENOUGH PRICES FOR APPROVED DRUGS THAT WOULD PROVIDE THESE SAME U.S. COMPANIES WITH ADEQUATE RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) TO REINVEST INTO NEW INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS.


ARGUABLY, IF MR. RANGEL AND HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS FOCUSED INSTEAD ON ASKING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH OTHER COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THOSE IN EUROPE, TO RAISE THE ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF DRUG PRICES PER THEIR GOVERNMENT-RUN MEDICINE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS, SAY 10-15%, THIS WOULD EASE PRICE PRESSURES IN THE U.S. SOMEWHAT, AND MOST LIKELY RESULT IN MORE AFFORDABLE, CUTTING-EDGE MEDICINES].


[The OECD nations, including the United States, have effectively been subsidizing the health care costs of developing country governments and citizens. Unfortunately, this subsidization has not occurred with all OECD members paying their fair share. Considering the extent of pharmaceutical price controls currently being imposed in countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, and the Member States of the EU, some of which are extremely proud of their social welfare systems, it is arguable that Americans are likely to bear most of these costs, especially in the near term.


In fact, this concern was duly noted within a recent 2004 United States Commerce Department study evaluating pharmaceutical pricing in high income countries. It called for higher patented drug prices in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and other OECD countries in order to reduce the degree to which American consumers subsidize global drug development costs.


The report concludes that these countries have been free-riding off American patent rent extraction by setting government reimbursement prices too low. . . A recent speculative estimate, based on industry data and calculations . . . suggests that eliminating OECD price controls on patented drugs would increase revenues by $17.6 to $26.7 billion per
year, with additional R&D of $5.3 to $8 billion per year. Implicit in this estimate is the assumption that about a third of incremental revenues would be spent on R&D. . . ."

See Kevin Outterson, Nonrival Access to Pharmaceutical Knowledge, Submitted to the CIPIH (Jan. 3, 2005), at note 190, ¶ 7.2., available at: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/submissions/KevinOutterson3january.pdf. ]

Competition Not Protection For U.S. Automakers in Canada

Competition not protection for Automakers


http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/303443


Try harder to sell cars overseas: Emerson


TheStar.com - Business


Trade minister rejects Hargrove's demand for restrictions on imports


February 14, 2008


Richard Brennan


OTTAWA BUREAU


OTTAWA–The Big Three automakers should try harder to sell their vehicles to other countries rather than expect the federal government to put up protectionist trade barriers, International Trade Minister David Emerson says.


"But the reality is the industry has not focused on non-North American markets, whether it's Korea or any other non-North American market," Emerson said yesterday, reacting to suggestions from Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove that Ottawa put trade restrictions on imported vehicles.


"Buzz always kind of speaks the rhetoric of free trade but when it comes right down to it, I'm not convinced he's a true free trader," Emerson told reporters.


Hargrove told a news conference on Tuesday that if reciprocal trade measures are not introduced soon, General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. Ltd., particularly, could go belly up within a decade.


"What he is saying is that he wants us to negotiate access into the Korean and Japanese market for vehicles and parts and obviously that's what a free-trade negotiation is about," Emerson said. "And yet they seem to want us to walk away from the free-trade negotiations. So I'm a little puzzled by it.


"I don't think modern trade negotiations are about those kinds of deals. I don't think major economies like Japan and Korea would be interested in that kind of a deal."


Canada and the United States signed in 1965 the Automotive Products Trade Agreement, which kept Canada's auto industry healthy for 35 years. But the World Trade Organization determined in February 2000 that the Auto Pact violated international trading rules and the agreement formally came to an end in February 2001.


While Hargrove still talks about the days of the North American Auto Pact, Emerson said those days are gone.


"The Auto Pact was a very tender small step, a careful step toward North American free trade and it had built into it all kinds of production safeguards that kept it from actually being a free-trade agreement," Emerson said.


"We eventually went to free trade but that was after many, many years of people reducing their nervousness about our ability to compete in a North American market."


Emerson said North American industry exports only about one-third of 1 per cent of production, but Hargrove said that's because there is no political pressure on countries like Korea and Japan to buy vehicles made by GM, Ford and Chrysler.


"They're not exporting to any significant markets outside of North America. The Canadian auto industry is fundamentally focused on the North American market," he said.

Candidates Convey Confusion Over Trade: There are No Silver Bullets

Decoding Candidates on Trade

February 21, 2008; Page A2

By DAVID WESSEL

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120354791005181195.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


The virtues of international trade and the pressures globalization is putting on American workers are becoming more prominent issues in the presidential campaign, even though the candidates most hostile to trade got trounced.


Sen. John McCain, the Republican, is the free trader in the race. "We need to continue to lower barriers to trade because 95% of the world's customers live outside the United States," Mr. McCain said recently in Michigan, where the jobless rate is 7.6%, the highest in the nation. "We need to have competitive manufacturing through lower health-care costs, lower taxes and opening new markets."


Mr. McCain has been a steady supporter of free trade in the Senate -- from the North American Free Trade Agreement to the pending U.S. trade pact with South Korea, which even some trade lovers find flawed.

By contrast, Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are vying to be the bigger trade skeptic. As they fight for Ohio (jobless rate 6%), neither wants the mantle of former President Clinton, who shucked the populist strains of his 1992 campaign and became a champion of Nafta and China's entry into the World Trade Organization.

It's hard to tell their positions apart. In the Senate, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama voted for a recent trade accord with Peru. Both voted against a Central American trade pact. Both oppose the South Korea deal.


Both voted to whack China for keeping its currency weak. Both back 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry's plan to use the tax code to reward companies for keeping jobs in the U.S., though Mr. Obama does so more loudly.


Lately, the two have been maneuvering to see who can be nastier about Nafta. In the end, though, neither would abrogate the treaty. She would "review...and work with our trading partners to make necessary adjustments." He would "work to amend."
DISCUSS


What sort of trade policy do you think a President McCain or President Clinton or President Obama would -- or should -- pursue?


Veterans of the Bill Clinton White House say Mrs. Clinton was a loyal soldier, but often unenthusiastic, at best, about her husband's embrace of globalization. Pro-globalization Democrats long have been uneasy about her for that reason.


Until his campaign reached the Midwest, Mr. Obama sounded like the former president. "Like [Clinton Treasury Secretary] Bob Rubin, I am optimistic about...the ability of U.S. workers to compete in a free trade environment -- but only if we distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across the population," he wrote in his 2006 book. The big-company chief executives who belong to the Business Roundtable say almost the same thing.


But if Bill Clinton were running again, he'd probably put some distance between his campaign and his eight-year presidency. It's the voters, stupid.


In December, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked Americans whether the increasingly global nature of the U.S. economy was good ("because it has opened up new markets and resulted in more jobs") or bad ("because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor.") By 58% to 28%, the respondents said it was bad.


MORE

• Comparison of where candidates stand on trade (PDF)
From The Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll:


"Do you think the fact that the American economy has become increasingly global is good because it has opened up new markets for American progress and resulted in more jobs, or bad because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor?"


Dec. 2007 June 1997
Good 28% 42%
Bad 58% 48%
Equally Good & Bad 11% 7%
Not Sure 3% 3%


From the December 2007 poll:
Good Bad Equal/Not Sure
Professionals 37% 50% 13%
White collar 27% 58% 15%
Blue collar 15% 72% 13%
Retirees 23% 62% 15%
* * * * * * * * *

Democrats 25% 63% 12%
Republicans 32% 55% 13%


By contrast, in August 2007, the question drew a much less-hostile response: 48% bad to 42% good. (The rest weren't sure or deemed globalization equally good and bad.) President Bush has done little to ease Americans' anxiety; even some of his own appointees won't defend the administration's rejection of Democratic overtures on shoring up assistance to workers hurt by trade.


So what happens after Inauguration Day? Even Mr. McCain, if eager to press Mr. Bush's trade-pact agenda, would be likely to face a Democratic Congress elected by voters who, though they may shop for imported underwear at Wal-Mart, believe globalization is holding down their wages.


Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama is likely to be able to do much about trade deals already in effect, despite their campaign rhetoric. Neither, even in the heat of the Midwestern spotlight, is talking about new barriers to trade. The Depression-era Smoot-Hawley tariffs aren't coming back. And the Democrats' trade hard-liner, former Sen. John Edwards, has dropped out of the race.


The issue really is about what happens going forward. And the most likely answer on trade is not much. Barring an unlikely breakthrough in the Doha Round of world trade talks, neither Democrat is likely to make trade deals -- even renegotiated to incorporate labor and environmental standards -- a top priority.


The fate of the deal with South Korea will be the most important early test case: It's a big economy, far more significant than Peru or Panama. The new Korean government might be willing to reopen the agreement to save the pact from a Democratic president pledged to oppose it. But even if Mr. Obama wins, the "timeout" on trade deals that Mrs. Clinton proposes is the most likely outcome. And that could turn out to be a route to maintaining good parts of globalization, which would lose an up-or-down vote right now.


The anxiety about globalization among a huge swath of the electorate reflects widespread economic insecurity and a sense that the U.S. economy isn't delivering the goods for many. Tweaking trade deals or adding another program for workers hurt by imports won't salve those fears.

A "timeout" to try to fix flaws in the American health-care system and to streamline and expand worker-assistance programs so they help workers cope both with technology and trade could be the key to preserving the benefits of globalization in the long run.

State of the Union address: President Bush discusses Free Trade, Protectionism and Doha

State of the Union address: President Bush discusses Free Trade, Protectionism and Doha




Excerpt from Bush's final State of the Union address - Jan. 28, 2008:


"On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas. Today, our economic growth increasingly depends on our ability to sell American goods, crops, and services all over the world. So we are working to break down barriers to trade and investment wherever we can. We are working for a successful Doha round of trade talks, and we must complete a good agreement this year. At the same time, we are pursuing opportunities to open up new markets by passing free trade agreements.


I thank the Congress for approving a good agreement with Peru. Now I ask you to approve agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Many products from these nations now enter America duty-free, yet many of our products face steep tariffs in their markets. These agreements will level the playing field. They will give us better access to nearly 100 million customers. And they will support good jobs for the finest workers in the world: those whose products say 'Made in the USA.'


These agreements also promote America's strategic interests. The first agreement that will come before you is with Colombia, a friend of America that is confronting violence and terror and fighting drug traffickers. If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere. So we must come together, pass this agreement, and show our neighbors in the region that democracy leads to a better life.


Trade brings better jobs, better choices, and better prices. Yet for some Americans, trade can mean losing a job, and the Federal Government has a responsibility to help. I ask the Congress to reauthorize and reform trade adjustment assistance, so we can help these displaced workers learn new skills and find new jobs."