links for 2008-01-30

• From the Berbers to Bach (Culture and Globalization) - Yo-Yo Ma
• The Economic State of the Union - Jared Bernstein
• The tenuous future of Africa-EU trade relations - Vox EU
• Farewell To Ben Stein - The Big Picture
• Killer wage regulations - Vox EU
• Bush misleads about tax cuts during the State of the Union. - Daniel Gross
• "Better Late Than Never" (Krugman/gov policy) - PIMCO - Bill Gross
• The Repeater (evolution) - Olivia Judson
• President’s Push to Make Tax Cuts Permanent is Irresponsible - CBPP

Comments

[hari]

On African-EU Trade negotiations - IEPA

We discussed earlier African poverty...and its political consequences.

Let us acknowledge, first, under Lome Convention, the terms of trade and investment was based on principle of non-reciprocity. Namely, the former colonial powers agreed to a more or less grand-and-aid type of development policy towards the African (Caribbean and Pacific) States.

This principle of non-reciprocity was challenged under GATT/WTO rules by mainly LatinAmerican States (eg.Brazil), and finally WTO ruled against the principle enshrined in the Lome Convention on trade preferences, and ruled that EU must bring it to an end.

Last year (2007) EU was forced to enter to EPAs with all three regions/state and an interim-trade agreement (IEPAs) was signed by EU with a number of countries in the ACP region.

The Caribbean States (under Caricom) signed a regional EPA pact. However, it also is an interim arrangement.

In the Pacific Region, PNG and Fiji signed separate EPAs.

This article is dealing with the consequences of the African EPA which does not take into account the problems of institutional and other capacity building requirements in the region, in order to allow free flow of imports from the EU markets (under WTO ruling!).

Remember, Central American States first began the argument against preferential treatment of bananas imports into EU from ACP region. They finally won their case, and bananas from ACP states were put on parity with rest of the world.

Now, with enlargement of EU-27, we've additional problems in which former EU colonial powers no longer have the political capacity to win arguments against newcomers in EU - who are principally fighting Chinese (and Indian) imports which are dislocating their domestic economy.

This EU trade policy issue will NOT go away any time soon, I suspect. The EU will have to come to grips with problems of underdevelopment (LDCs) and lack of capacity building in ACP States to deal mainly with intellectual property issues, and trade dumping from EU-27.

[robertdfeinman]

Research Groups Boom in Washington

The economy may be slowing down, but Washington’s ideas industry is booming.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research institution that was effectively broke seven years ago, just bought a $33 million vacant lot downtown as the site for a new home. The Council on Foreign Relations is expanding its Washington office to a $60 million building on F Street. The United States Institute of Peace is erecting a $180 million headquarters of steel and white translucent glass on a corner of the Mall.

Since I'm always going on about the power of (hidden) money to influence the political landscape, I find it interesting that this article, which details the rise in funding for think tanks, only mentions one contributor - George Soros.

I don't think this is an ideological bias on the part of the reporter, but rather an indication that the left is much more open about who their backers are than is the right. Soros makes a big point of explaining where and why he contributes his money. The only exception is for pro-democracy efforts in dictatorships, where staying below the radar is a political necessity.

Contrast this with the efforts of the Koch's, Scaife's and Coors' on the right.

The other lesson to be learned is that sponsoring ideologically based think tanks is effective. Further down in the article there are links between explicit policies and pundits who pushed them.

One thing that would improve the situation would be to require all such groups to list their major contributors. I also see no reason for them to be tax exempt. A few bits of PR concerning voter education or getting out the vote are just cover for their real agendas.

If you want to be the astro-turf front for candidate X or position Y then why should the tax payers subsidize this in the form of a tax exemption?

[hari]

rdf -

I also read it and was amazed (!) that think-tanks are actually preparing their own taskforces to take over once the change is a faita-compli.

In EU-27, most of the decision-making apparatus is made-up of so-called non-political civil service. In US, the civil service doesn't seem to have anything to do other than follow the think-tank and implement their policies.

This may go to explain some of the rising contraints in the federal system of gov today.

[anne]

We are then in the process of having years of gains in homeownership, which has been a support for middle class wealth building, reversed. The harm done in African American communities will be profound because such a high percentage of the most costly mortgages were unfairly sold to African Americans.

[Meh]

The "Killer Wage Regulations" is a bit of a curate's egg. It tests all sorts of factors in pursuit of a "robust model" but never once tests the influence of variations in doctors on MCI survival, which seems a little odd.

Likewise, since nurse pay barely reaches private sector levels even in far-flung Newcastle, it mostly seems that the study proves nurses are underpaid. Removing central pay bargaining would redistribute the "excess deaths" around the country (and that might be more equitable) but absent greater resources (which the study declines to engage with) there is no reason to assume that the number of deaths will change much if central pay was removed. (If you wanted to pay nurses more in London then you'll have to pay nurses less in Newcastle.)