Jaisal Noor of the Real News Network interviews Triple Crisis blogger Gerald Epstein about the U.S. Federal Reserve “taper” and its global impact. See a related interview with Epstein, by the Real News Network’s Paul Jay, here.
Yellen’s Tapering of Quantitative Easing Disruptive at Home and Abroad
Jaisal Noor of the Real News Network interviews Triple Crisis blogger Gerald Epstein about the U.S. Federal Reserve “taper” and its global impact. See a related interview with Epstein, by the Real News Network’s Paul Jay, here.
China-Latin America Economic Bulletin
Jill Richardson, Guest Blogger
This post is a summary of the inaugural China-Latin America Economic Bulletin, from the Global Economic Governance Initiative (GEGI) at Boston University. Triple Crisis contributors Kevin Gallagher and Cornel Ban are the co-directors of GEGI.
As 2013 drew to a close, Boston University’s Global Economic Governance Initiative inaugurated its annual China-Latin America Economic Bulletin. The Bulletin is intended as a go-to source for analyzing and synthesizing trends within the burgeoning China-LAC [Latin America and Caribbean] relationship. It can be a significant challenge to come by reliable data detailing this trade and investment relationship. By providing concrete figures and data, the Economic Bulletin helps to fill in these gaps as well as provide an evidence-based understanding of trends and developments in the increasingly important China-LAC connection.
Many of the key findings of the 2013 Economic Bulletin involve the evolving nature of China-LAC trade. As a whole, LAC exports to China have risen massively since 2000, averaging a 23 percent annual export growth rate. This relatively rosy picture obscures the fact that in recent years this rate has dropped precipitously, slowing to just 7.2 percent growth in 2012. Much of this slowdown can be attributed to falling commodity prices. Despite LAC exports to China growing in volume, price volatility has allowed for stagnant, or even declining, export values.
Global Dollar-Based Financial Fragility in the 2000s, Part 3
This is the third in a four-part series excerpted from the Political Economy Research Institute (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) working paper “The Endogenous Finance of Global Dollar-Based Financial Fragility in the 2000s: A Minskian Approach,” by Junji Tokunaga and Gerald Epstein. Tokunaga is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics and Management, Wako University, Tokyo. Gerald Epstein is a Professor in the Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). See Part 1, Part 2, and the full paper.
Governments and Activists are Fighting the Corporate "Right" to Sue Governments
This post is drawn from a new article regular TCB contributor Robin Broad wrote with John Cavanagh, “A Strategic Fight Against Corporate Rule,” The Nation, February 3, 2014.
Over the past several decades, multinational corporate Goliaths have helped to write and rewrite hundreds of rules skewing tax, trade, investment and other policies in their favor. The extraordinary damage these policies have caused has become increasingly apparent to the communities and governments most directly affected by them. This, in turn, has strengthened the potential of a movement that’s emerging to try to reverse the momentum. But just like David with his slingshot, the local, environmental and government leaders seeking to revise rules to favor communities and the planet must pick their battles carefully.
We have come to believe strongly that one of the most promising of these battles takes aim at an egregious set of agreements that allow corporations to sue national governments. Until three decades ago, governments could pass laws to protect consumers, workers, health, the environment and domestic firms with little threat of outside legal challenge from corporations. All that changed when corporations started acquiring the “right” to sue governments over actions—including public-interest regulations—that reduce the value of their investments. These rights first appeared in little-known bilateral investment treaties. Twenty years ago, corporate lawyers embedded them in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Today, more than 3,000 trade and investment agreements and even some national investment laws grant foreign investors these powers.
The Obama administration is attempting to insert similar anti-democratic investor protections in new trade and investment agreements with countries that border the Pacific and with the European Union. Hoping to expedite the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), in early 2014, U.S. congressional leaders introduced fast-track trade promotion legislation that would severely limit Congress’s ability to amend such agreements. The widely anticipated move set off a storm of protest from unions, environmentalists, liberal members of Congress and others, and will likely remain a high-profile fight in the United States in the coming months.
Governments and Activists are Fighting the Corporate “Right” to Sue Governments
This post is drawn from a new article regular TCB contributor Robin Broad wrote with John Cavanagh, “A Strategic Fight Against Corporate Rule,” The Nation, February 3, 2014.
Over the past several decades, multinational corporate Goliaths have helped to write and rewrite hundreds of rules skewing tax, trade, investment and other policies in their favor. The extraordinary damage these policies have caused has become increasingly apparent to the communities and governments most directly affected by them. This, in turn, has strengthened the potential of a movement that’s emerging to try to reverse the momentum. But just like David with his slingshot, the local, environmental and government leaders seeking to revise rules to favor communities and the planet must pick their battles carefully.
We have come to believe strongly that one of the most promising of these battles takes aim at an egregious set of agreements that allow corporations to sue national governments. Until three decades ago, governments could pass laws to protect consumers, workers, health, the environment and domestic firms with little threat of outside legal challenge from corporations. All that changed when corporations started acquiring the “right” to sue governments over actions—including public-interest regulations—that reduce the value of their investments. These rights first appeared in little-known bilateral investment treaties. Twenty years ago, corporate lawyers embedded them in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Today, more than 3,000 trade and investment agreements and even some national investment laws grant foreign investors these powers.
The Obama administration is attempting to insert similar anti-democratic investor protections in new trade and investment agreements with countries that border the Pacific and with the European Union. Hoping to expedite the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), in early 2014, U.S. congressional leaders introduced fast-track trade promotion legislation that would severely limit Congress’s ability to amend such agreements. The widely anticipated move set off a storm of protest from unions, environmentalists, liberal members of Congress and others, and will likely remain a high-profile fight in the United States in the coming months.
Why is the Fed Pushing Interest Rates Higher?
Paul Jay of the Real News Network interviews Triple Crisis blogger Gerald Epstein about the U.S. Federal Reserve “taper” and its impact worldwide.
Most African Leaders Not Making Promised Investments in Agriculture
Cross posted from Global Post.
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — The African Union commemorated the 10-year anniversary of the Maputo Declaration on agricultural development with the launch of the “Year of Agriculture and Food Security” last week at its summit in Addis Ababa.
Around the summit, following discussions of the political and humanitarian crises in South Sudan and the Central African Republic, I heard the talk turn to agriculture. And African governments certainly have a lot to talk about.
Since Maputo, which mandated that African governments commit to spending at least 10 percent of their budgets on agriculture by 2015, 20 nations have pledged to do so under the rubric of the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program (CAADP). Agricultural spending has doubled across the continent, a notable achievement that has shown solid results in increased food production and economic growth for those countries that have fully invested in the sector.
But there is a long way to go. According to a new report from the nonprofit ActionAid, most governments are not “walking the talk” – they are failing to live up to their CAADP commitments.
Ganga Needs Water, Not Money
Cross-posted from Center for Science and Environment.
It was way back in 1986 that Rajiv Gandhi had launched the Ganga Action Plan. But years later, after much water (sewage) and money has flowed down the river, it is as bad as it could get. Why are we failing and what needs to be done differently to clean this and many other rivers?
Pollution in the Ganga remains a tough challenge. According to recent estimates of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), faecal coliform levels in the mainstream of the river—some 2,500 km from Gangotri to Diamond Harbour—remain above the acceptable level in all stretches, other than its upper reaches. Even in the highly oxygenated upper stretches, faecal coliform levels, though within acceptable levels, are increasing in places like Rudraprayag and Devprayag, suggesting inadequate flow for dilution.
Pollution hot spots, the mega and fast-growing cities along the river, present a grimmer picture. According to CPCB monitoring data, BOD levels are high downstream of Haridwar, Kannauj and Kanpur, and peak at Varanasi. But what is worrying is that in all the stretches pollution is getting worse. This is not surprising given that all along this heavily populated stretch fresh water intake from the river is increasing. Water is drawn for agriculture, industry and cities but only waste is returned to the river.
Turning the 'Tied'? 2014 Farm Bill and the Future of U.S. Food Aid
After years of delay, the U.S. Senate voted yesterday in favor of the 2014 Farm Bill, which passed easily in the House or Representatives last week. President Obama is widely expected to sign the bill into law. The bill’s provisions on food aid, though not as far reaching in the end as many had hoped for a year ago, are being hailed as a first step toward more major reform in the future. But newly emerging donors mimicking outdated U.S. food aid practices may muddy the reform efforts.
U.S. food aid policy has seen remarkably few major changes since it was initiated 60 years ago, in 1954. Donated food is still required to be primarily grown in the United States, and at least half must still be transported on U.S. flag ships. The United States also remains by far the largest donor of food aid on the global stage, carrying significant weight in setting food aid trends.
But in these past 60 years, the world has changed a great deal, making U.S. food aid policy arcane and outdated. NGOs such as Oxfam and others pushing for reform have emphasized these points.