Following on from the visit last month of United States Trade Representative Susan Schwab, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Pascal Lamy, is visiting China this week to drum up Chinese support for reviving the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations. He appears to have been given the same non-response as the USTR.
The Chinese have put the ball squarely back in the court of the EU and the United States, saying it was up to the major developed countries to take the lead in reviving the talks. (full story here).
China has so far kept very quiet in the trade talks, limiting their participation to argue for a 'time out' from trade liberalization for newly-acceded members. Having given major "concessions" to join the club, they figure they've paid their dues and should be given time to soak up the atmosphere. And given the often poisonous rhetoric surrounding China's role in the world economy (not least from certain U.S. Congressmen), one can hardly blame them from keeping their heads below the parapet in the negotiations proper.
It is true, as Ambassador Schwab and DG Lamy have argued, that China has gained a lot from joining the WTO (although many of those gains would have been realized anyway as a result of unilaterally liberalizing their economy) and would stand to lose from a failed WTO. Similarly, China should be held to account for the commitments it made upon joining the WTO. But expecting China to take a more active role in the negotiations, and reverse their stance of the past five or so years, is a bit much. And, as they have proved on the currency issue, the Chinese won't be bullied.
The "quiet diplomacy" to revive the round will likely continue, including at the IMF and World Bank shindigs later this month. But if a miracle occurs and the Doha round is concluded, it won't be because of China's efforts.
James Lovelock, the author of the "theory known as Gaia, which holds that Earth acts like a living organism, a self-regulating system balanced to allow life to flourish," has a new message for us: Never mind, it's too late, Gaia can't handle industrialization. Earth will be at least 10 degrees hotter in a decade or two. It's irreversible. "We are poached," the Washington Post reports.
So we might as well enjoy ourselves. Burn those fossil fuels. Build those McMansions. Eat those cheeseburgers. We're doomed anyway.
Or you could recall an earlier doomsayer, Professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, who wrote in 1968, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." He was slightly off. But he kept his job at the prestigious university, he made a bundle on his bestseller, and he still writes for publications like Scientific American. He's even quoted praising Lovelock in the Post article.
As for Lovelock, he's the subject of a huge, lavish, sales-boosting two-page profile in the Washington Post. Not to mention respectful reviews in major papers on both sides of the Atlantic. He's speaking Friday at the respected Carnegie Institution of Washington. Why are people like Lovelock and Ehrlich treated seriously?
Crossposted from Comment is free.
Interesting to see that the influential Time magazine endorses an "all imperialist, all the time" approach to looking at the five year anniversary of 9/11.
Time draws on the broad range of experts from Max "Case for American Empire" Boot all the way over to Niall "The United States Is and Should Be an Empire" Ferguson, who is, frighteningly, a foreign policy adviser to John "Sophisticated Plan for Iraq" McCain.
Time really went out of its way to get at both sides of the issue there! You can have it either way: Empire or Empire!
It’s been largely under the media radar screen, but California may be on the verge of establishing a single-payer health care system. Late last month, the California Assembly passed legislation establishing a Canadian-style, government-run health care system. The legislation had earlier passed the California Senate, and while there are small differences that will have to be reconciled, there is no doubt that the bill will be sent to Governor Schwarzenegger. The question now is whether Schwarzenegger will veto the bill. In the past he has said he would, but it’s an election year and he is under big pressure from unions and others to sign it. Schwarzenegger has caved in other issues recently, from prescription drug price controls for MediCal to vehicle emission controls to state budgeting. If he signs this bill it will be bad news for Californians and a terrible precedent for the nation.
Under the bill:
- Private health insurance would be abolished. The state would become the sole payer for all health care services. The bill does not specifically prohibit paying for a procedure “out of pocket,” although it states several times that its intent is to have “a single payer.” We will probably have to wait to see how this would be interpreted by the commission established to oversee the new program, and later by the courts. The bill does, however, require that doctors take all patients and in the order that they apply for service. Thus, you couldn’t jump the queue by paying cash. Nor could a doctor set up a cash-only practice.
- The bill establishes global budgets for health spending in the state. If the budget is exceeded the state could cut reimbursements to providers or prohibit capital expenditures. The latter would impact the quality of health care nationwide, limiting research and development and undermining many of the nation's top hospitals.
- The bill contains no funding mechanism (beyond using federal Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and VA funding). Earlier versions of the bill proposed funding the proposal with a 3 percent income tax hike and a job-killing 8 percent hike in the payroll tax. The latest version would have a commission decide how to pay for it.
Interestingly, the Assembly amended the bill to strike out the words “health care consumer” wherever they appeared and replaced them with “patient.”
Great piece by Fareed Zakaria on why the most powerful country on the planet shouldn't cower in fear of Iran:
Washington has a long habit of painting its enemies 10 feet tall—and crazy. During the cold war, many hawks argued that the Soviet Union could not be deterred because the Kremlin was evil and irrational. The great debate in the 1970s was between the CIA's wimpy estimate of Soviet military power and the neoconservatives' more nightmarish scenario. The reality turned out to be that even the CIA's lowest estimates of Soviet power were a gross exaggeration. During the 1990s, influential commentators and politicians—most prominently the Cox Commission—doubled the estimates of China's military spending, using largely bogus calculations. And then there was the case of Saddam Hussein's capabilities. Saddam, we were assured in 2003, had nuclear weapons—and because he was a madman, he would use them...
Thanks to Laura Rozen for the link.
In this morning’s New York Times, William M. Chace, a former president of Emory and Wesleyan Universities, offered the welcoming speech he always wanted to give to incoming students, but could never deliver as a college president. Just a bit of his speech explains what should be obvious about skyrocketing college costs, but is constantly denied by “experts” in higher education policy: As more and more money goes into the ivory tower, students demand ever-grander amenities, and tuition prices are driven higher and higher.
Laudable [a fictitious university] could be cheaper, but you wouldn’t like it. You and your parents have made it clear that you want the best. That means more spacious and comfortable student residences (“dormitories,” we used to call them), gyms with professional exercise equipment, better food of all kinds, more counselors to attend to your growing emotional needs, more high-tech classrooms and campuses that are spectacularly handsome.
Our competitors provide such things, so we do too. We compete for everything: faculty, students, research dollars and prestige. The more you want us to give to you, the more we will be asking you to give to us. We aim to please, and that will cost you. It’s been a long time since scholarship and teaching were carried on in monastic surroundings.
For state and federal policymakers, the implications of the basic economic reality Chace describes should be pretty clear. All the aid that they give to students using taxpayer dollars--more than $96 billion in the 2004-05 academic year alone (which is more than twice the inflation-adjusted total of just 10 years prior)--allows students to demand more and more grandiose stuff, and in so doing drive college costs to ever-dizzier heights.
For a hint of what Washington bureaucrats think of the rest of the America, take a look at this letter to the Wall Street Journal:
You say the average federal civil worker makes more than the average private sector worker. That's true, but this isn't even an apples and oranges comparison -- it's more apples and filet mignon. The federal government doesn't sell fast food or operate large-scale retail stores using minimum-wage employees. So yes, medical researchers at the National Institutes of Heath [sic] and the Centers for Disease control [sic] are paid more than entry-level workers at McDonald's. Yes, intelligence analysts in the Department of Defense and State Department diplomats working under harsh conditions around the world are paid more than Wal-Mart greeters. And, yes, the thousands of dedicated doctors and nurses caring for our wounded and disabled veterans in the Department of Veterans Affairs are paid more than a new barrista [sic] at Starbucks.
Partnership for Public Service
Max Stier, a lobbyist on behalf of government, whose official biography boasts that he "has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government," sees medical research and intelligence analysis when he thinks of the federal government. And when he thinks of the 124 million Americans who work in the private sector, he can only imagine McDonald's clerks, Wal-Mart greeters, and Starbucks coffee servers. Stereotypes, anyone?
As I wrote a few years ago, some people in Washington look across the fruited plain and see only a vast and barren wasteland interrupted by federal bureaucracies.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in 1992, "The ballot box is the place where all change begins in America"--conveniently forgetting the market process that has brought us such changes as the train, the skyscraper, the automobile, the personal computer, and charitable or self-help endeavors from settlement houses to Alcoholics Anonymous to Comic Relief.
Entrepreneurs and businesses in America satisfy far more of our needs than coffee, Big Macs, and cheap clothes, as useful as those things are. Housing, for instance. Planes, trains, and automobiles. Software and computer networks. Entertainment. Medical research. (Yes, there's some done at NIH. There's more done by pharmaceutical companies.) Compound interest. In that earlier article, inspired by the latest proposals for some niggling regulations of banking services, I suggested:
Consider the presumptuousness of such a bill and the relative contributions of banks and senators to our lives. Civil society, hampered at every turn by petty political rules, takes thousands of years to develop the technology, the complex market mechanisms, and the levels of trust necessary for individuals to be able to get cash, at midnight, in an airport or a 7-Eleven thousands of miles from home, from a bank that they do no other business with--and members of Congress decide that the bank shouldn't be able to charge a dollar for that service. Imagine what kind of banking services we'd have if we had to wait for Congress to develop the necessary institutions, and then imagine what we might have if Congress got entirely out of the business of controlling, hamstringing, and bullying banks.
Has Max Stier ever tried to do business with American Express and the Social Security Administration, Federal Express and the U.S. Postal Service, McDonald's and the DMV? His demeaning of 124 million American workers in the attempt to defend the above-market wage rates of bureaucrats is laughable. But it's also insulting, and utterly revealing of the Washington mindset.